"During the long years of UNCTAD’s existence not one of our fundamental objectives has been fulfilled." These were the words of Raul Prebisch, inspiring factor and first General Secretary of the Organization, in December 1986, at the opening of the course named after Manuel Pérez Guerrero, UNCTAD’s second General Secretary (IDEA, Testimony of the Opening of the Manuel Pérez Guerrero Course, December 1986). Both illustrious Latin Americans, of persevering and unrelenting nature, felt that no matter how arduous a fight they put up, the fundamental objectives remained unreachable. It is important here to point out that when his mandate ended in Geneva, Manuel Pérez Guerrero, as Minister of International Economic Relations of Venezuela, became one of SELA’s most important promoters and architects. Both organizations share the same concept and a common task yet to be achieved: to work for just and equitable participation of developing countries in the actual design of regulations and practices of the global economic system. Our region’s role in this endeavor, which due to the tempestuous times we live in has become a crusade, has been a leading one and it will continue to be so, as evidenced by the fact that at the helm of UNCTAD there is yet another Latin American, Ruben Ricupero.

Thirty-five years have gone by since UNCTAD’s founding. And indeed, many changes have taken place. Advances and setbacks, many of them embodying historic mutation processes. But changes in the system do not necessarily mean that the legitimate interests of society have prevailed, it only means it has been accomplished for some segments in both developed and developing countries alike. I will quote Prebisch in this respect, "the fundamental matters" have not been achieved. And that is why today there are still countries, whose populations are but 15% of the population of the entire planet, that continue to hold over 80% of total product. And even in that very same country, most of the wealth and contemporary means to access this wealth is limited to a given social sector, made up by individuals who adopt the most important decisions across the globe.

And globalization is precisely one of the elements that makes up the framework of transformation. And yet, just as expressed in the substantive agenda item for UNCTAD X, approved by the Trade and Development Board on 5 February 1999): "The impact that globalization has had on development has been mixed: while some developing countries have reaped benefits, others, have not, and economic disparity among nations has not declined."

In view of these circumstances, the challenge of the times remains to reconcile globalization and development by finding the right way to complement each other. And it is precisely with this idea in mind that the SELA Permanent Secretariat submits to this meeting the report entitled "Globalization with development". This paper analyzes the means available to achieve adequate participation for the Latin American and Caribbean in the globalization process and to implement coordinated and effective action for this same region. This paper makes it clear that the region needs to step up the speed of the development process, which is indispensable to guarantee the preservation of democratic governance in our countries.

New paths must be scrutinized if emphasis is to be placed on the development aspect as part of the policy for global economic participation. This means that Latin America and the Caribbean must necessarily look well beyond the horizon, much more so than it ever did during the past two decades. The region must focus its energies and come up with something similar to UNCTAD’s "positive agenda", not only as applied to international trade but also with respect to all issues that interact with development, an agenda proposing adequate solutions for the conditions and differences observed among developing countries. Such agenda must also set a steady course that will propel these countries into the global system. In this sense, the "positive agenda" cannot be limited to separately treating each of the links between international economic issues and development; instead, these issues must be treated as parts that compose one whole, a single entity whose parts interact dynamically and which therefore cannot be severed from one another on the basis of causes and consequences.

Similarly, the division of developing countries into different categories should also be avoided. Although these categories underline country specificity, they detract attention from a more fundamental difference that immediately sets developing countries apart from developed countries. By highlighting differences between developing countries, our larger purpose loses strength, leaving benefits to be reaped, once again, by none other than the developed countries.

Diversity among developing countries should not make them lose sight of the identities they share as members of the same basic group. Therefore, the attention given to the "emerging markets" should in no way be detrimental to other marginalized countries. And any special attention conferred to less developed countries cannot allow us to overlook the needs of yet other developing countries. In the case of our region specifically, there is another important aspect that cannot be left out: the fragmentation of Latin America and the Caribbean, and I am referring to particularly to those "special relations" which by their very nature lead to nothing more than rapidly shifting, temporary situations that do not focus on our countries fundamental grievances.

Ever since the 80s, one single economic paradigm, with very few variations, has been applied to the entire region of Latin America and the Caribbean. And this despite marked disparities between the different economies. The same agenda has applied for most of the countries. We therefore must assume two things: first, that the domestic institutional frameworks are ready to the implement policy changes which the model calls for; and second, that favorable conditions permeate the international environment, most importantly, stability, and financial flows that enable its operability.

UNCTAD IX, which took place in 1996 in Midrand, South Africa, coincided with a stage of economic growth and optimistic expectations for Latin America and the Caribbean. Four years later the meeting coincides with an entirely different international and regional milieu. The scenario was one based on the events of 1997, the crises of Southeast Asia and Russia, the shake-up in Brazil and other neighboring countries, all of which put in evidence the region’s vulnerability to phenomena born of the globalization process.

We are no longer facing cyclical trends; these are deeply embedded perturbations whose every oscillation rocks national economies and even the entire global system. Needless to say, the shock waves are felt with greater intensity by none other than the developing countries. It is indeed a systemic phenomenon because its impact is increasingly spreading throughout the globe and its implications crop up in different areas: in less than three months’ time, the Southeast Asian crisis indiscriminately affected countries, subregions and regions whose macroeconomic situations differed significantly.

And yet other detonations go even beyond the geographic scope. Their repercussions are intersectoral, and they are not limited to changes in foreign exchange rates and stock market disruptions. They go much, much deeper causing severe destabilization by deteriorating trust in emerging economies, hindering access to international capital markets, and infecting banking systems.

Trade flows also feel the shock. Product and country competitiveness patterns are upset. As these negative and uncontrollable factors accrue, the impact turns much harsher translating into the loss of growth opportunities. ECLAC figures indicate that the Latin American and Caribbean region’s GDP growth in 1998 was 2.3% instead of the 5.1% that had been forecast before the crisis. As for the estimates for 1999, this rate is expected to be negative, or stagnation, at best, providing an upturn in the scenario.

Every drop in GDP percentage points represents a lost opportunity to lower poverty levels, to generate employment, to set up new enterprises, to attract investment, to upgrade infrastructure, to invest in human capital. The social costs of a crisis must also be measured, which of course entails political costs. The presence of democratic governance in the countries of the region depends above all on a government’s capacity to minimize and withstand the intensive shock generated by successive, increasingly frequent crises.

The Latin American and Caribbean region can expect the forthcoming years to be marked by the medium- and long-term financial and trade impact of the current crises and the concern to find ways to prevent and control any such events in the future. Changes must therefore be made in government policies and business enterprises, and at the same time, endogenous analytical capacity, improved and broadened vis-a-vis our region’s future development strategies.

The market-economy model did not provide for prevention, for forecasting, nor for the management of crises of this nature and its repercussions. The process of reflecting on this model’s insufficiencies is only beginning. During the previously cited occasion, Raul Prebisch made the following comment: "Capitalism is in a full-fledged crisis, but this is not a crisis of decadence (...) A considerable vital impulse has been felt." The impulse is there; and by means of fast, interactive usage of the possibilities provided by the "Information Era" and its operative application through the networks built on informatics logic, we are shifting from a development model based on greater numbers of production factors to another one that is articulated on the basis of optimizing the capacity to combine these factors with know-how and information.

This logic needs a new technological, economic and social structure: Castells would name it "the society of networks". It would lead to the exclusion of millions in different parts of the planet, mainly those in the developing countries, and also many in the developed countries. In view of this it is important to point out that the challenge to be dealt with at this stage of transition has two aspects - because it encompasses societies that have elements of both models, and which at times are in open contraposition- and interactive. Our debates need to take these characteristics of this new structure into consideration much the same way that they must also form part of the issues used to handle economic concerns.

The countries of the Latin American and Caribbean region will need to continue to crusade, at the domestic level, in order to enhance democratic regimes’ capacity to satisfy the population’s aspirations for better standards of living, and also at the external level, in order to manage repercussions set off by crises in remote parts of the world without ever being quite sure as to whether or not the macroeconomic policies and institutional reforms undertaken by each country will suffice to face up to the epidemic effects transmitted through the international system.

The expectations created near the end of the 80s with the new openness and modernization policies have not been satisfied. One only needs to look at the alarming poverty levels to see this. At the international level, the atmosphere of the economies of the region is increasingly seen as a factor that will determine the success of domestic policy. Changes in the global system, and crises and the ensuing shock waves are a result of these changes, have made it clear that the region of Latin America and the Caribbean is not only permeable but also vulnerable in the face of exogenous factors that remain beyond its control.

The Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund spoke of "unfair punishment" when referring to the financial implications the crisis would have in Latin America and the Caribbean. With this thought in mind, the same principles of economic governance that States are required to maintain inside their borders should also be extrapolated to the international scene, thus including economic concepts (such as crisis prevention, competition, sustainable growth and development), political concepts (treatment of asymmetries, transparency, participation), and ethical concepts (equity, solidarity, and human development) into the global system’s management.

The changes that Latin American and Caribbean countries have been making in their development strategies since the end of the 80s have reshaped the region’s economic map. Sufficient time has elapsed permitting for sound evaluation of the results and lessons of that process. And the development agenda of Latin America and the Caribbean for the forthcoming years – as regards its domestic and external policies- will depend largely on this evaluation.

UNCTAD has enormous potential for action in a large share of the economic areas of the region. Many of UNCTAD’s cooperation and analyses tools can be used in tandem with the individual efforts of countries and subregional integration schemes. UNCTAD’s relevance will depend on the ability it has to work with current agendas – national and regional – of these developing countries and contribute elements of reflection, analysis and action that are directly linked to these agendas and the paths these will follow, always in the framework of the challenges previously mentioned. UNCTAD would likewise seek to determine where comparative advantages can be built on and determine exactly what is needed to ensure that the development dimension is in fact a part of international economic policy. And equally important, it is also up to the Latin American and Caribbean countries themselves to incorporate UNCTAD into their external economic policy as an instrument to guide them in this learning and reflection process. The region is practically devoid of multilateral tools in the sense that fora of universal participation where the development issue is a central topic are practically non-existent. Much the same way that Latin American and Caribbean countries do not count on the resonance of fora of international reach.

UNCTAD’s work –and in a more immediate sense, our own discussions on development policy, trade policy and development financing- will require exchanging experiences, detailed studies and the adoption of political positions by our countries. Matters such as the need to revitalize development policy without jeopardizing stability; the importance of reasserting the relevance of regional and subregional integration schemes in the world economy; of directly treating those issues that are crucial for the countries of the region, such as trade in agriculture and commodities; the evaluation of the results of the implementation of the Uruguay Round and the definition of positions vis-a-vis the introduction of new issues into the multilateral agenda, issues such as a new international financial structure are concerns that need to be unrelentingly and constantly attended.

When I re-read the speech that the General Secretary gave at that meeting (similar to this one, prior to UNCTAD IX, which was held in Caracas in 1996), I was astounded to see that practically all the problems mentioned by Mr. Ricupero continue present now; and that no concrete progress has been made with respect to the "fundamental concerns" alluded to by Prebisch. And this despite the excellent work performed by the UNCTAD Secretariat and by all of us that work day in and day out with these same issues. These problems become increasingly perplexing due to the deep changes made in the global system (which I have referred to and changes caused by the crises themselves that bear an impact on all economies. The thought of easy solutions to get back on track with development vanished into thin air. Therefore our responsibility lies in persevering in the treatment of such problems by introducing innovations in the way we think and operate in the system and remaining steadfast until concrete achievements crystallize. This is our task.

So what we need is to encourage initiatives, foster debate and analyses that will invigorate the idées-force which UNCTAD transmits to the international community through its activities. This organization, together with those existing at the regional and subregional planes, should not be viewed solely as vehicles for cooperation and analysis but also as a means to generate and disseminate ideas. The consolidation of this function and the political support provided by developing countries will be the platform, which our "positive agenda" can be built upon.

If we are to progress towards what some would call utopia – modifying the current course, which would be inconvenient from every possible angle- we do need to rally ourselves together to act on the basis of our very own values and concepts. Much the same way we did half a century ago, when Latin American and Caribbean concerted thought and action was able to generate and implement, both regionally and internationally, doctrines and institutions that yielded a positive and substantive influence in the realm of ideas and the praxis of development.

It is possible that in less time than we expect, new ideas will lend their inspiration to international economic relations. It is important that the principles forged from such inspiration pave the way for globalization that goes hand in hand with development. Admittedly, not a day goes by without something occurring that we would not have thought possible. If this can happen, then it is not unlikely that we will come up with principles and policies that instead of putting sustainable human development and growth at odds will actually strike a complementary balance respecting both equity and diversity, supporting governance in the domestic frameworks of States as well as in the operations of the global system. It is up to UNCTAD and the countries of our region, as part of UNCTAD, to continue working toward this important goal.