https://idsa.in/idsanews/was-the-non-aligned-
movement-ever-relevant-for0-
india_skalayanaraman_290916
Was The Non-Aligned Movement Ever Relevant
for India?
September 29, 2016
It is a widely held belief that the Non-Aligned
Movement (NAM) was highly relevant for India and
its foreign policy interests during the bipolar era of
the Cold War and that it has, since the 1990s, lost
this relevance in a unipolar international order.
It is true that NAM played an important role during
the Cold War years in furthering many of the causes
that India advocated: decolonisation, end to
apartheid, global nuclear disarmament, ushering in
of new international economic and information
orders, etc. But what is generally ignored is the fact
that NAM was more or less irrelevant for India in
terms of helping to protect and promote its security
and interests – the principal criterion by which the
utility of a multilateral group should be measured.
NAM’s lack of utility for protecting and promoting
India’s security and interests is clearly demonstrated
by the diplomatic positions adopted by member
countries during the various wars in which India has
been involved. On each of these occasions, NAM
members invariably adopted diplomatic positions
that were not favourable towards or supportive of
India.
To begin with, during the 1962 War with China,
Ghana and Indonesia – two of the co-founders of
NAM, along with India – adopted explicitly pro-
China positions. Ghana, which had developed close
economic ties with China, even cautioned the United
Kingdom against giving military aid to India since it
might “aggravate the unfortunate situation”.
In general, most countries of NAM adopted even-
handed positions and refused to unequivocally
condemn China’s aggression. Astonishing as it may
sound for realist ears, Indian leaders and officials
were simply dismayed at the behaviour of their
nonaligned partners. That dismay also extended to
the so-called Colombo states which had put forward
the Colombo Proposals. In the light of this
experience, the official history of the 1962 War
wryly noted the serious limitations of Afro-Asian
solidarity, a statement that, by extension, also
reflects on the Non-Aligned Movement.
Three years later came the 1965 War with Pakistan.
Again, Indonesia not only adopted an anti-India
position but also supplied some arms to Pakistan.
NAM members from West Asia, including Saudi
Arabia, Jordan, and Kuwait, adopted pro-Pakistan
positions. Overall, India had no active supporters
and few sympathisers in the world at large. As The
Indian Express noted in an editorial at that time, “we
do not seem to have many friends abroad”.
The worst, of course, came during the 1971 War.
Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Kuwait and other Arab
states were all fiercely pro-Pakistan. Egypt’s
position was particularly dismaying to India, given
that it was even unsympathetic to the massive
refugee problem that India confronted. If India was
disappointed about the diplomatic positions adopted
by NAM members from West Asia, the situation was
only slightly better in South East Asia. Indonesia
once again stood against India and it even
compelled a more sympathetic Malaysia into
backing Pakistan.
Overall, most NAM countries adopted anti-India
diplomatic positions. This was starkly evident
during the vote on the UN General Assembly
Resolution of 7 December 1971 calling for a
ceasefire and withdrawal of forces. Of the total of
129 members of the UN at that time, 104 countries
voted for the resolution, which was unfavourable for
India and its position that only the establishment of
an independent Bangladesh would put a stop to the
brutal repression unleashed by the Pakistan military
in East Pakistan and create the necessary condition
for the return of the 10 million refugees from Indian
territory. Only 11 votes were cast against the
resolution, with almost all of these coming from the
Soviet Union and its satellites. The brutal fact is that
most NAM members stood completely opposed to
India during the 1971 War.
The one exception to this rule was the diplomatic
positions adopted by several NAM members during
the Kargil conflict. Indonesia, Iran, Saudi Arabia
and South Africa highlighted the importance of
peaceful dialogue under the Simla Agreement as
well as maintaining the Line of Control inviolate.
However, the decisions of these countries did not
flow from NAM solidarity. Instead, their decisions
were a function of the new international diplomatic
outreach that India had initiated in the early 1990s
as well as in the wake of the 1998 nuclear tests.
In the light of such lack of support from NAM
members for India at critical moments in its history,
it is astonishing that the dominant view so far has
been that NAM was deeply relevant for India during
the Cold War years. In reality, the only use NAM
had for India was during the 1970s and 1980s.
During this period, NAM served as a forum to
channel India’s deep dissatisfaction with the
international order, characterised as it was by
economic, political, and nuclear hierarchies. It was
through NAM that India articulated the call for a
new international economic order that would cater
for the special needs of the developing countries.
Similarly, it was through NAM that India articulated
the call for a new world information and
communication order to provide a greater voice for
developing countries in global communications.
NAM also served as a forum for India to articulate
its views on global nuclear disarmament and the
discriminatory nature of the global nuclear order at
the centre of which stood the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty.
As we now know, all of these were failed causes that
did not acquire any purchase and have since been
abandoned. India in particular, but also most other
NAM countries, have integrated themselves to
varying degrees within the liberal economic order
and have benefited from it. India today is a member
of the G20 and its rising economic profile has
contributed to the greater resonance of Indian
popular culture around the world. In addition, India
has declared itself as a nuclear weapons power and
has for all practical purposes abandoned the call for
global nuclear disarmament. Even India’s
dissatisfaction with the nuclear order has waned in
the wake of its accommodation into global nuclear
commerce and the very real prospects of it
becoming a member in various nuclear and dual-use
technology cartels. The only dissatisfaction with the
international order that India continues to nurture is
with respect to a permanent seat on the UN Security
Council. Even in this case, India has sought to
assuage itself by gaining verbal assurances from
almost all the countries of the world.
Further, since the end of the Cold War, India has
become a key member of various multilateral
groupings: BASIC (Brazil, South Africa, India and
China) for protecting and promoting its interests on
climate change; G4 for pushing through reforms of
the UN Security Council; G20 for managing the
world economy; BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India,
China and South Africa) and IBSA (India, Brazil
and South Africa) to enhance economic coordination
with countries that are similarly placed; and
ASEAN-centred institutions, the Shanghai
Cooperation Organisation, and Russia-India-China
grouping for pursuing political and security
interests. These engagements in multiple forums for
varying economic, political and security purposes
have, in the words of Shashi Tharoor, made the
Non-Aligned Movement “largely incidental” to
India’s pursuit of its national interest since the end
of the Cold War.
In sum, the Non-Aligned Movement was not
relevant for promoting India’s important national
interests during the Cold War years. And since the
end of the Cold War, India’s increasing integration
with international economic, political and security
structures has led to NAM losing even its earlier
limited usefulness as a vehicle for articulating
India’s dissatisfaction with the international order.
https://www.thehindu.com AUGUST 19, 2016
‘NAM principles more relevant now’
Venezuela hopes Prime Minister Modi will attend
meeting in September
Venezuela is counting on Prime Minister Narendra
Modi’s attendance at this year’s Non-Aligned
Movement (NAM) meeting in September, despite
reports he is unlikely to, said visiting Foreign Minister
Delcy Rodriguez on Thursday.
“India is a founder of the Non-Aligned movement, so,
for Venezuela, it would be really important to have
Prime Minister Modi there. We are hopeful he will
come,” Ms. Rodriguez told The Hindu, while in Delhi
for one day to hand over the invitation letter from
President Nicolas Maduro to the government.
“The Non-Aligned principles are today more relevant
than ever. So we are sure that India will attend NAM
and attend at the highest level,” the Venezuelan
Foreign Minister said.
Pharma products
On Thursday, Ms. Rodriguez met with Petroleum
Minister Dharmendra Pradhan on the government’s
offer of supplying Venezuela much needed
pharmaceutical products in exchange for oil.
Later in the evening, she met External Affairs Minister
Sushma Swaraj to discuss preparations for the summit.
Senior officials say a decision has not yet been made
on who will represent India at the summit scheduled
for September 17-18 in Margarita Island, Venezuela.
“The External Affairs Minister underlined the
importance India attaches to NAM,” said spokesperson
Vikas Swarup, although Ms. Swaraj confirmed India’s
participation, he said the details would be “worked out
and intimated soon.”
No Indian PM apart from then caretaker Prime
Minister Charan Singh in 1979 has missed a NAM
summit since it was formed in 1961. Even so, there are
several indications that PM Modi is disinclined to go,
despite receiving the invitation several weeks ago.
To begin with, unlike his predecessors, Mr. Modi has
not referenced Non-Alignment as a “core principle” of
Indian foreign policy in his public addresses, speaking
of NAM once only as “India’s heritage”. In 2015, when
he was invited to the 60th Anniversary of the Bandung
Conference, which had founded the Non Aligned
Movement, Mr. Modi deputed Ms. Swaraj to travel to
Jakarta instead. Officials say it is possible that Ms.
Swaraj or Vice President Hamid Ansari will attend the
Venezuelan summit as well.
Secondly, Venezuala is facing its worst economic crisis
at present, with a negative growth rate (-8 per cent) and
an inflation rate touching 500 per cent. “Given the
economic, social crisis and daily protests, this would
be the worst possible time for PM Modi to go or for the
NAM summit to be held there,” said former
Ambassador R. Vishwanathan, an expert on Latin
America, who was India’s envoy to Venezuela.
On Wednesday, Foreign Secretary S. Jaishankar also
hinted that the government’s policy is veering away
from multilateral bodies like NAM. “Blocs and
alliances are less relevant today and the world is
moving towards a loosely arranged order,” he told
journalists.
When asked to comment on those remarks, and
whether NAM had lost its relevance, Ms. Rodriguez
said, “At this time, there is one power who wants to
control the whole world. They don’t respect the law,
and we must fight that together in NAM,” in a clear
reference to the United States who has imposed strict
sanctions on Venezuela.
Wrong signal
Opposition leaders say that if Mr. Modi skips the NAM
summit, it would send out the wrong signal, pointing
out that in 2012, Dr. Manmohan Singh had travelled to
Iran, despite pressure from the U.S. to minimise
contact with the country that had major sanctions
imposed on it.
“If PM Modi doesn’t wish to honour NAM, it will just
show that the government is dumping all former
foreign policy in a wholesale manner,” former External
Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid told The Hindu,
adding, “But Indians have grown up on the idea of
non-alignment, and it may not be as easy for him to
explain this decision.”
https://www.economist.com Jul 27th 2018
Has BRICS lived up to expectations?
The bloc of big emerging economies is surprisingly
good at keeping its promises
DOES anyone still care about the BRICS? Brazil,
Russia, India, China and South Africa concluded their
tenth official summit in Johannesburg on July 26th.
The widespread perception is that the group has failed
to live up to the hype the acronym helped to generate.
But that is only half true.
The combined GDP of the original quartet (which did
not include South Africa) is actually far bigger in dollar
terms than Goldman Sachs envisaged when they first
projected BRIC growth in 2003 (after Jim O’Neill,
their former head of economic research, coined the
acronym two years earlier). China’s rapid expansion
has more than made up for tribulations elsewhere. And
thanks to the evolution of the BRICs’ exchange rates
and prices, their dollar growth has been more
impressive than their performance measured in their
own currencies. “The relative and absolute position of
the BRICS, with the exception of Russia, is close to
what I envisioned in 2001,” Mr O’Neill said in a recent
interview.
Something else that has grown like Topsy is the bloc’s
agenda. The first official summit in 2009, held in
Yekaterinburg, Russia, yielded a short declaration
containing 15 identifiable commitments, according to
the BRICS Information Centre at the University of
Toronto. Eight years later, when the leaders met in
Xiamen, China, the declaration stretched to 71
numbered paragraphs stuffed with 125 discrete
promises. The statement just released in Johannesburg
is even baggier: 102 paragraphs containing an as yet
uncounted number of pledges. They cover everything
from settling trade disputes and securing Syria to
making more movies together.
Are any of these commitments kept? It’s easy to
assume they are barely read, let alone fulfilled. But
they are not quite that empty, according to the BRICS
Information Centre’s analysis. Before each summit, it
checks whether members have lived up to the main
promises they made the year before. I’ve added up
their scores for seven summits, from 2011, when South
Africa joined the official group, to 2017. They show a
surprisingly high rate of compliance: 77% on average.
China keeps its word the most; South Africa the least
(partly because it has contributed little to the group’s
various commitments to Iraq and Afghanistan). The
BRICS’ overall rate of compliance is very similar to
that of the G7 over the same period. And that was
before this year’s tetchy G7 standoff in Charlevoix,
Canada (a meeting that was dubbed the G6+1 summit
by some critics of American unilateralism). Acronymy
is better than acrimony.
https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/the-big-five-
at-10/article24555866.ece
The big five at 10 July 31, 2018
BRICS has grown in influence in its first decade but is
still far from achieving its initial goals
In the age of Twitter, BRICS, or the grouping of Brazil,
Russia, India, China and South Africa, has produced a
102-paragraph-long Johannesburg Declaration, one of
the longest in recent years. This implies that either this
important multilateral grouping has a lot to say about
the state of the world or it needs to hire a sharp editor.
It is prudent to proceed on the first assumption. There
is little doubt that BRICS has grown in influence,
expanded the arc of its interests, and established new
institutions and partnerships in its first decade. More
importantly, it has created for its members the habits of
working together. Intra-BRICS cooperation is on a
rising trajectory.
Yet, the fact remains that BRICS is still far from
achieving its initial goals: reform of global financial
governance, democratisation of the United Nations,
and expansion of the Security Council — partially
because two of its members (China and Russia) do not
want the other three members (India, South Africa and
Brazil) to obtain parity in the global pecking order.
Summit highlights
In this backdrop, the 10th summit, held last week,
framed its deliberations against U.S. President Donald
Trump’s unconventional approach on world affairs,
particularly the looming trade wars. “The summit is
about the context,” said Maxim Oreshkin, Russia’s
Economy Minister. “We are at a time when the U.S.
and China announce new measures almost every
week.”
BRICS leaders, therefore, stressed “the centrality of the
rules-based, transparent, non-discriminatory, open and
inclusive multilateral trading”, based on the World
Trade Organisation. This stemmed from their broader
commitment to cooperate for strengthening
multilateralism, the rule of law and an equitable
international order. That one of the BRICS members
(China) does not follow in word and spirit this high-
sounding prescription in regard to Asian affairs may
have escaped attention.
The other big idea emanating from the summit is to
help nations to prepare for the Fourth Industrial
Revolution. South Africa, as the host, zoomed in on it
early and managed to create sufficient enthusiasm for
it. Participants embraced it, articulating the need for a
new strategy on employment, education and skill
development as the digital revolution unfolds. BRICS
Partnership on New Industrial Revolution (PartNIR),
however, will make a meaningful contribution only if it
goes beyond the five ministries of industry. It should
engage with the private sector and young innovators
working at the cutting edge of technology today.
The summit saw further consolidation of the business
pillar. The BRICS Business Council has been actively
enhancing trade and economic cooperation in diverse
sectors ranging from manufacturing and energy to
financial services and regional aviation. Besides, the
leaders renewed their commitment to an inclusive and
“people-centred approach” on development. The steady
progress in interactions through sports, films,
education, culture and tourism has been commendable.
Africa, BRICS Plus
The BRICS outreach to Africa began at the last summit
hosted by South Africa, in 2013; it has picked up
momentum now. But African leaders want more. They
need big loans from the New Development Bank
(NDB) for their infrastructure projects. A South
African official stated that this would happen soon but
uncertainty persists. So far, the NDB has dispersed
loans totalling $5.1 billion — all to its members only.
China introduced the “BRICS Plus” format at the
Xiamen summit last year by inviting a few countries
from different regions. South Africa emulated it,
arranging the attendance of top-level representation of
five nations of its choice: Argentina, Jamaica, Turkey,
Indonesia and Egypt. The precise role of “BRICS Plus”
countries will take time to evolve. An immediate
benefit is the immense opportunities it provides for
networking among leaders. A large number of bilateral
meetings took place on the summit’s sidelines. For us,
the most important was the interaction between Prime
Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi
Jinping, the third in four months, which deepened the
trend towards conciliation between Asia’s two biggest
powers.
Unity and divergence
As a partnership that represents over 40% of the
world’s population and accounts for 22% of global
GDP, BRICS will continue to be an influential voice as
long as its convergences prevail over its divergences.
Changing power equations within BRICS are being
watched closely. China’s dominance is a reality even as
the grouping asserts the sovereign equality of all
members. China-Russia proximity has been a
continuing factor. Given its political and economic
travails, Brazil played a low-profile role.
Mr. Modi and his delegation were pro-active and
visible. A South African commentator observed that
India was playing “a delicate geopolitical game with
the U.S., China and Russia as their spheres of influence
wax and wane” across regions. To Delhi’s satisfaction,
four paragraphs in the summit declaration were
devoted to the problem of international terrorism. But
no decision was taken to set up the BRICS credit rating
agency that India favours. The India-South Africa
partnership helped to ensure that the Johannesburg
Declaration was balanced and well-rounded in its
orientation.
The critical question is whether BRICS’s exertions will
have appreciable impact on G-7, the grouping of the
developed countries, which is in disarray, and
particularly on the U.S. administration.
https://www.financialexpress.com/india-
news/shaktikanta-das-appointed-indias-g20-sherpa-
until-december-31-2018/949913/
Shaktikanta Das appointed India’s G20 Sherpa
until December 31, 2018
Shaktikanta Das, Former Secretary, Department of
Economic Affairs on Monday was appointed
India's G 20 Sherpa for the Development Track
of the Summit until December 31, 2018.
November 27, 2017
Shaktikanta Das, Former Secretary, Department of
Economic Affairs on Monday was appointed India’s G
20 Sherpa for the Development Track of the Summit
until December 31, 2018. There are two tracks in G20
— the Finance Track and the Development Track.
“Finance Track is managed by the Secretary
(Economic Affairs), Ministry of Finance, as India’s
Deputy to G-20 and the Development Track is
coordinated by the Sherpa. The Department of
Economic Affairs will provide necessary support to the
Sherpa,” it added. Former Niti Aayog vice-chairman
Arvind Panagariya had suggested to Prime
Minister Narendra Modi to find a full-time Sherpa for
G20 talks as India’s role is expanding in the global
arena. Panagariya was appointed India’s Sherpa for the
G20 talks in September 2015, replacing the then
railway minister Suresh Prabhu.
A Sherpa is a personal representative of the leader of a
member country at an international Summit meeting
such as the G8, G20 or the Nuclear Security Summit.
The Sherpa engages in planning, negotiation and
implementation tasks through the Summit. Task is to
coordinate the agenda, seek consensus at the highest
political levels, and participate in a series of pre-
Summit consultations to help negotiate their leaders’
positions. Sherpas are career diplomats or senior
government officials appointed by the leaders of their
countries. There is only one Sherpa per Summit for
each member country; he/she is assisted by several
sous Sherpas.
https://www.thehindu.com/business/Economy/india-
gets-g20-praise-on-startup-funding-derivative-
reforms/article19244816.ece
India gets G20 praise on startup funding, derivative
reforms JULY 09, 2017
Modi government has said it wants India to be ranked
in the top-50 nations in terms of ease of doing
business.
Acknowledging steps being taken by India for
sustainable and inclusive growth as well as support to
global economy, the G20 has praised the initiatives in
the country for promoting ease of doing business,
startup funding and labour reforms.
In its Hamburg Action Plan, adopted at the G20
Summit of leaders from the world’s 20 largest
economies, the group also noted that “in the financial
sector, India is popularising a number of derivative
instruments in exchanges or electronic trading
platforms” as part of measures to enhance resilience of
its economy.
It further said India is facilitating external commercial
borrowings (ECBs) by startups in order to encourage
innovation and promote ease of doing business, as part
of the efforts being taken by the G20 members this
year for maintaining momentum on structural reforms
and sustainable growth.
On steps being taken by G20 countries for promoting
inclusive growth this year, the Action Plan said India is
introducing labour market reforms to provide security
to workers, increase female participation in the
workforce and make doing business easier in the
country.
The acknowledgement from the G20 Summit, which
was attended by Prime Minister Narendra Modi among
other world leaders, assumes significance in the wake
of India trying hard to improve its global ranking for
ease of doing business.
The World Bank ranked the country at a low 130th
position last year, an improvement of just one position
from the previous year.
The Modi government has said it wants India to be
ranked in the top-50 nations in terms of ease of doing
business. The next update to the ranking is expected
later this year.
The areas where India ranks poorly as per the World
Bank ranking include starting a business, dealing with
construction permits, registering property, paying
taxes, trading across borders, enforcing contracts and
resolving insolvency.
The country has implemented a spate of reforms in the
recent months in areas like insolvency, taxation and
starting a business and expects the rankings to improve
substantially.
The acknowledgement of various reform measures by
G20, whose members include 19 countries and the
European Union, has come as the latest boost to hopes
for better ranking for India in terms of ease of doing
business.
Global institutions like the World Bank, IMF, WTO,
OECD, ILO, WHO and the Financial Stability Board
(FSB) are among the partners to the G20.
G20 member countries include the US, UK, Germany,
India, Australia, Japan, Russia, Argentina, Brazil,
Canada, China, France, Indonesia, Italy, South Korea,
Mexico, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and Turkey.
The G20 Hamburg Action Plan, which sets out the
group’s strategy for achieving strong, sustainable,
balanced and inclusive growth, also said that the closer
partnership and action by G20 members will boost
confidence and contribute to shared prosperity.
It said the Action Plan has been developed against a
backdrop of improving growth and job prospects.
“The global economic recovery is progressing and
gaining momentum. Investment has picked up, and
trade and manufacturing are showing signs of recovery.
However, the pace of this growth is still weaker than
desirable, and downside risks remain.
“Weak productivity growth, income inequality and
ageing populations represent challenges to growth in
the longer term,” the G20 Action Plan noted.
It included new policy actions to tackle challenges in
economies, focusing on initiatives that foster inclusive
growth, enhancing resilience and further the G20
efforts to implement structural reforms.
In the action plan, the G20 members resolved that they
will continue to use all policy tools — monetary, fiscal
and structural — individually and collectively to
achieve the goal of strong, sustainable, balanced and
inclusive growth, while enhancing economic and
financial resilience.
The members committed to use their fiscal position
flexibly and in growth-friendly way to prioritise high-
quality investment, and support reforms, while
ensuring debt as a share of GDP is on a sustainable
path.
They also reinforced their commitment to structural
reform and acknowledged that excess volatility and
disorderly movements in exchange rates can have
adverse implications for economic and financial
stability.
The G20 leaders also committed to refrain from
competitive devaluations and said they will not target
their exchange rates for competitive purposes.
The Action Plan also outlined new actions to tackle the
issues of beneficial ownership, correspondent banking
and remittances, anti-money laundering and combating
the financing of terrorism, fossil fuel subsidies and data
gaps.
The G20 leaders said their growth strategies —
individually and collectively — will boost global
growth, including an increase of an additional 2 per
cent for the G20 collective GDP by the next year.
The 13-page action plan took note of various steps
being taken by the member countries including on
monetary policy and enhancing resilience of the
respective economies.
It also said China is improving its business
environment and utilising foreign investment actively,
while the European Union is fostering investment with
a proposal to extend the European Investment Plan and
increasing the overall flexibility of the EU budget to
support job creation, investment and economic growth
On promoting inclusive growth, the Action Plan noted
that the inequality within many countries had increased
until the mid-2000s and the member countries are
introducing further measures this year to promote
inclusive growth and raise the living standards of all
their citizens.
It also said that the malicious use of Information and
Communication Technologies (ICT) could disrupt
financial services crucial to both national and
international financial systems, undermine security and
confidence and endanger financial stability.
On taxation, it said the G20 will continue to work for a
globally fair and modern international tax system and
welcome international cooperation on pro-growth tax
policies.
It also called on all jurisdictions to sign and ratify the
multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative
Assistance in Tax Matters.
Terming the multilateral convention as an important
tool in fight against corruption, tax evasion, terrorist
financing and money laundering, the G20 said it will
advance the effective implementation of the
international standards on transparency and beneficial
ownership of legal persons and legal arrangements.
https://www.imf.org July 22, 2018
Statement by the IMF’s Managing Director on the G20
Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors
meeting in Argentina
Ms. Christine Lagarde, Managing Director of the
International Monetary Fund (IMF), issued the
following statement today at the conclusion of the
Group of 20 (G20) Finance Ministers and Central Bank
Governors Meeting in Buenos Aires, Argentina:
“The G20 meeting of Finance Ministers and Central
Bank Governors took place against the backdrop of
continued strong but more uneven global growth.
Indeed, the world economy is facing increasing risks,
especially in the short term, from rising trade tensions,
financial pressures in vulnerable emerging economies,
and the return of sovereign risk in parts of the euro
area.
“During the meetings I encouraged policy makers to
address these growing risks decisively and in a
cooperative spirit to ensure that the recent period of
strong growth endures and that the dividends are more
widely shared. This is most crucial when it comes to
safeguarding the open international trade system. I
urged once more that trade conflicts be resolved via
international cooperation without resort to exceptional
measures.
“Macroeconomic policies should adapt to the changing
outlook, taking individual circumstances into account.
In many countries, especially in those with excess
current account deficits, this means avoiding
procyclical fiscal policies to help put debt on a
downward path; and in excess surplus countries with
fiscal space, it means investing more in human and
physical capital to raise potential output and catalyze
private investment. These steps will also help to
moderate global economic imbalances.”
“In response to financial volatility, exchange rate
flexibility should continue to play a role in buffering
shocks in emerging economies, and prudential policies
should address financial vulnerabilities everywhere.
“In Buenos Aires, our discussions also focused on the
future of work, a key priority for the Argentine G-20
chairmanship. New technologies and rapid advances in
digitalization, artificial intelligence, and automation
hold both enormous potential and significant
challenges. I am optimistic that with a comprehensive
and coordinated policy response to facilitate change,
the benefits of this new wave of technologies will by
far outweigh the downsides. This response must
include continued investment in education, lifelong
learning and appropriate social safety nets.
“There was broad recognition in our meeting that the
benefits of a strong financial regulatory system offset
its costs and that global cooperation remains critical.
There was also progress in the discussions on financial
innovation and the importance of harnessing the
potential of fintech while at the same time mitigating
risks.
“I am encouraged that the G20 Ministers and
Governors reaffirmed their commitment to a strong,
quota-based, and adequately resourced IMF at the
center of the global financial safety net.
“I would like to express my great appreciation to the
Argentine authorities for their excellent organization
and effective leadership of this G20 meeting. I look
forward to returning to Argentina for the G-20 Summit
in November.”