Review and Strategy Meeting.
November 8, 2005.
Dear
friends and colleagues,
We (Sony
Kapoor, Christian Aid, Emira Woods, IPS, and Jo Marie Griesgraber, New
Rules) have been working to put together a coherent afternoon meeting for
November 8. Beginning with a light lunch, we will reflect on what happened
at the G-8 Summit at Gleneagles, the Annual Meetings of the World Bank and
the IMF, the UN World Summit of September, and the status of preparations
for the Hong Kong WTO Ministerial slated for December. We will then
consider what opportunities have opened up because of these events. Then
looking more broadly, we want to know how these opportunities compare with
where we would like to go—whether we phrase it as the eradication of
poverty, making poverty history, or meeting the Millennium Development
Goals. Are we tackling the right issues? Allocating our resources most
effectively? How can we collaborate going forward?
These
same questions are posed below. You may be interested in knowing that the
week after our meeting, the policy directors of many of the UK’s leading
development NGOs will be wrestling with these same questions. Since we are
all about the same struggle, how do we collaborate—and win?!
Sony
Kapoor has provided some background reading to help you prepare:
The
event will take place at the Law Offices of Aiken Gump.
1333 New
Hampshire Avenue, NW
(Corner
of New Hampshire and O Streets, NW,
just
South of Dupont Circle)
202-887-4000
Because
of security, you must RSVP to: Seamus Finn, who kindly arranged for the
meetings space seamus@omiusa.org
AGENDA
A discussion
divided into four parts
12:00 – 1:30
1) A brief
analysis of the outcomes and expected outcome of various meetings in 2005
and the implications for various development issues
Facilitator:
Debyani Kar, Jubilee USA Network
Report: G-8 Meeting: Sameer Dossani, Fifty Years is Enough
World Bank Meetings: Lenny Sapozhnikov, InterAction
IMF Meetings: Jo Marie Griesgraber, New Rules and Debyani
Kar, Jubilee USA
Network
UN World
Summit: Juergen Stetten, Friedrich Ebert Foundation
WTO Hong Kong Ministerial: Pamela Sparr, InterAction
2) A discussion
of what, if any progress is expected in the short to medium term and whether
this would be enough to achieve various goals such as the MDGs, etc
Facilitator: Jo Marie
Griesgraber, New Rules Coalition
1:30 – 3:30
3) A brainstorm
about what lessons have been learned, how these influence the strategy going
forward –
Have we been
going down the right path at all?
Which doors have
been closed shut and which new ones have opened?
Facilitator:
Seamus Finn, Oblates of Mary Immaculate, Office of Justice, Peace/Integrity
of Creation
Presentor: Sony
Kapoor, Consultant, Christian Aid
3:30 – 5:00
4) Finally, how
to best tread this path together? The lessons leant from working closely
together throughout the year and opportunities and pitfalls. How do we go
forward from here?
Facilitator:
Emira Woods, Institute for Policy Studies
Presentors:
Raymond Baker, Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution and Center for
International Policy
Report from November
8, 2005: Review and Strategy Meeting.
The purpose of this
strategy meeting was to reflect on what on what happened at the G-8 Summit
at Gleneagles, the Annual Meetings of the World Bank and the IMF, the UN
World Summit of September, and the status of preparations for the Hong Kong
WTO Ministerial slated for December. The next step was to consider
what opportunities had opened up because of these events. Then looking more
broadly, we wanted to know how these opportunities compare with where we
would like to go—whether we phrase it as the eradication of poverty, making
poverty history, or meeting the Millennium Development Goals. Are we
tackling the right issues? Allocating our resources most effectively? How
can we collaborate going forward?
Part one: A
brief analysis of the outcomes and expected outcome of various meetings in
2005 and the implications for various development issues
Facilitated by: Debyani Kar, Jubilee
USA Network
Report on
G-8 Meeting (Sameer Dossani, Fifty Years is Enough)
At the G-8
Meeting in Gleneagles the principle of debt cancellation was agreed on, but
the details were not. At the Gleneagles meeting a commitment was made for
full debt cancellation of IMF, World Bank, and African Development Bank debt
for 14 countries. Another 4 countries will receive IMF and World Bank debt
cancellation, but they were unable to get an agreement on the cancellation
of Inter-American Development Bank debt. Unfortunately this debt
cancellation remains tied the HIPC initiative which the World Bank has
acknowledged as a failure.
History: Groups
such as Fifty Years is Enough has been working on 100% debt cancellation
since 1994. These groups were told that this was unrealistic and in 2002
Camdessus reaffirmed that this would not happen. What happened recently?
What made it possible?
Report on
World Bank Meetings by Lenny Sapozhnikov, InterAction
Between the G-8
meeting in July and the September Annual Meetings, non-G-8 countries were
asked to fork over money for a deal that they did not commit to. Many
countries felt that they were not part of the decision. At the end of the
day the US Treasury and the UK Treasury worked on getting a communiqué from
both the IMF and the World Bank that basically said the boards of those
institutions agreed to the G-8 deal, and the G-8 would put in the extra
money. The communiqués promised to come up with a timetable and benchmarks.
A vote has yet to take place and is not expected for a few more months, but
we are convinced it will go through.
There remain
fears about new conditions. There are also fears that they will back down
on some of the countries. For example, Mauritania may not receive debt
cancellation because of a coup that occurred in the last couple of months.
The
conditionality review was not promising. They agreed to look into an annual
review of conditionalities but have made no commitment to revise them.
Report on
IMF Meetings by Jo Marie Griesgraber, New Rules and Debyani Kar, Jubilee USA
Network
The IMF Board
was also irritated that the G-8 was making the decision for them. The IMF
is looking into grandfathering in additional countries and adding new
conditionalities for debtors.
The IMF now has
a Policy Support Instrument (PSI) which is all policy, but no money. Nigeria
used this instrument because they wanted the IMF stamp of approval for Paris
Club debt reduction, without adding more debt. This instrument is
voluntary. In addition, the IMFC approved, in principle, on an exogenous
shocks facility, and a proposal for additional money for ‘aid for trade.’
No actions were
taken on Governance. The IMFC report in September was identical to the April
report. There was talk by US Under-Secretary of the Treasury Tim Adams on
the reallocation of votes, but no need to increase quotas. His point is
that the Europeans should work it out between themselves about who loses
votes, and proceed to consolidate to one or two chairs. The Rato paper also
talks about the need to reallocate votes, but anticipates quota increase in
the next round.
One common
theme is that the IFIs have not signaled any willingness to change course
from the current macroeconomic framework
Report on UN World Summit by Juergen Stetten, Friedrich Ebert Foundation
Kofi Annan
kicked off the UN World Summit with a program “A Larger Freedom” to reform
the UN. Annan’s program laid out four themes: 1) development, 2) security,
3) human rights, and 4) strengthening of the UN.
Three issues
stand out:
1)
The
agreement to setup a Peace Keeping Commission.
2)
Accepting the concept of “responsibility to protect” their citizens against
gross violations of human rights (e.g. Rwanda and Kosovo)
3)
Do away
with the Human Rights Commission and replace it with a Human Rights Council
At the summit
there was a half-day component on the FFD Consultations to address the
individual initiatives. During this component many countries presented
initiatives such as the Lula Initiative, and the Chile air ticket levy.
There was an agreement in the General Assembly to a 2007 FFD +5 meeting.
Kofi Annan’s
term as Secretary General ends in late 2006. What will the new Secretary
General bring to the table? This is a wait and see year. No decisions will
be made until the new Secretary General starts.
Report on
WTO Hong Kong Ministerial: Pamela Sparr, InterAction
-
Agriculture – Issues include
market access, special and differential treatment. NGOs are mostly
focused on the Agriculture negotiations. The Southern governments no
longer seem so united here.
-
Non-Agriculture Manufacturing
Agreement. (NAMA) The EU wants action here, not just on Agriculture
-
Trade Related Intellectual
Property (TRIPS) - Amending Article 31 with respect to drugs under
compulsory licensing.
-
General Agreement on Trade in Services
(GATS) - The EU and others are trying to force benchmarks for the
global South to designate when certain sectors will open to
liberalization.
-
Aid for Trade – Trade
facilitation, quantity and nature of trade, integrated framework.
What will
happen when there is a new Head of the WTO?
ONE Campaign
Position on Trade. They are focusing on the poor areas in terms of
evaluation and monitoring the WTO.
1)
Agriculture position – work to get developing countries greater
opportunities to sell their goods, domestically, regionally,
internationally. Timetable to eliminate agriculture supports in the West.
2)
Power to
decide. Flexibility to determine their own trade policy. Safeguards.
Benchmarks. Fully exempt from tariffs?
3)
Open and
transparent processes. Ability for civil society to provide meaningful
input and to monitor at national and international level. Meaningful
opportunities for civil society to participate.
4)
Trade
capacity building – A call to increase money for ‘aid for trade’ as long as
trade facilitation is transformed in the following ways: 1) country driven;
2) involve local civil society; 3) used for development of local and
regional markets, not just open international markets; 4) without conditions
for reciprocal economic policy changes; 5) not tied to the purchase of US
products or the use of US contractors; and 6) prevent and mitigate negative
consequences of changes in trade policy.
Part two: A
discussion of what, if any, progress is expected in the short to medium term
and whether this would be enough to achieve various goals such as the MDGs,
etc
Facilitator: Jo Marie
Griesgraber, New Rules Coalition
What progress
would you expect if your lobbying dreams come true? What do we expect or
hope that might happen? Please cast this in a positive light as we want to
develop strategies and priorities.
Discussion
-
A pressure point on debt came
about because of a number of factors. This gave us a case for using
multilateral donor resources to pay down their own debt. If bilateral
donors were able to afford to cancel debt then so could multilateral
donors. Two major things made this possible: 1) Argentina’s default
changed the course of the IMF power structures and 2) the threat of
Nigeria defaulting on Paris Club debt led to the Paris Club offering
Nigeria a deal.
-
The IFIs are on the
defensive, with their backs against wall. They are fighting back with a
renewed focus on infrastructure and conditionalities.
-
WTO negotiations are very
intense and highly political. There is a draft of GATs where the
section on benchmarking is written in. There is a huge uproar over this
because it was not agreed to include that benchmarking. Now, the author
of the text says he can’t remove it without majority consensus even
though there was no majority consensus to include it in the first
place.
-
WTO Lobbying focus should be
on stalling negotiations until people begin talking a different kind of
trade policy.
-
There is currently about $1.5
trillion of developing country debt. How much of this debt would be
reduced by the Gleneagles commitment? The best estimate of this debt is
$40 billion over 40 years, which is barely a drop in the bucket. The
targeted countries are only a fraction of the trillion.
-
In the agriculture
negotiations the Administration is focusing on US development NGOs for
their help on getting subsidies reduced. Commodity groups are pressuring
Congress to continue with subsidies. How do we advance positively on
this?
-
If the WTO negotiations are
stalled again this will lead to difficult alternatives. What will happen
if the developing countries push too hard and succeed in making Hong
Kong another Cancun? It might be a Pyrrhic victory. We have seen a
rise of bilateralism; the US is involved in all sorts of deals.
Developing countries are agreeing to deals with the US that they would
not concede to in the WTO.
-
Gleneagles also made a
promise of new money. How much is going to be new money? Debt
cancellation will help the creditors to sort out their books and
regularize their accounts. A larger issue is how much new money will be
given?
-
We need to expand the debt
cancellation deal and decouple it from HIPC. Right now the details are
miserable. We need attainable goals and instruments to help attain those
goals.
-
At the Havana meeting the
idea of debt audits came out. What if we did a debt audit of the United
States? How much of the debt would be odious and illegitimate.
-
Short term goals on debt: 1)
keep chipping away at the current economic model’s failure to reduce
poverty and increase per capita growth; 2) make sure the 10 countries at
decision point get debt cancellation without going through more
conditionalities; and 3) get the Inter-American Development Bank debt
included in the G-8 deal.
-
Look at alternative economic
polices such as ALBA in Venezuela. Action Aid will be working with
heterodox economists who will visit countries at the same time as the
IMF teams do their Article IV visits, to demonstrate that the countries
have alternatives, which deepening economic literacy. NGOs do a lot of
good work on budget tracking. We need to focus on economic literacy and
learn alternative policies
-
Engage with the US Treasury
via citizens groups. The NGO advocacy community has been trying to
directly lobby Treasury but there are no channels to do this. The proper
channel to the US Treasury is through Congress. Work with different
constituencies such as HIV/AIDS activists.
-
Action Aid will work with
parliamentarians in 5-6 developing countries. They are organizing a
series of trainings and workshops to learn what is wrong with the
current framework. With this tactic they will work with parliamentarians
and engage directly with central banks and finance ministries. One
strategy is to dialogue with Central Bank and Finance Ministers during
the lead up to Article IV consultations.
-
Start to work on odious
debt. Iraq has set a precedent. Many developing countries are better
positioned to go-it-alone, instead of using IMF resources, because of
high reserves and high commodity prices.
-
There are now positive
examples of the “coalitions of the willing”, such as countries prepared
to move ahead with the airline ticket tax.
-
Look at the hot topics and opportunities
that are moving now: 1) the exogenous shock facility; 2) the FFD +5
process; 3) a timeline on debt which may be linked with conditionality;
4) new macro-economic frameworks; 5) “aid for trade” to reduce negative
consequences of trade. What about a “poison pill”, a negative strategy
for Hong Kong? Where other trade concessions would be linked with ending
bank secrecy, or with required bank information sharing?
Part three: A
brainstorm about what lessons have been learned, how these influence the
strategy going forward. Have we been going down the right path at all? Which
doors have been closed shut and which new ones have opened?
Facilitator:
Seamus Finn, Oblates of Mary Immaculate
Presentation by Sony Kapoor, Consultant, Christian
Aid
We will be doing similar meetings like today’s
strategy meeting in the UK, Germany, Sweden Norway, and beyond.
This year’s G-8
summit focused on development and security. The focus at the meeting was
primarily on security.
The MDGs are
only meant to cut poverty in half; this is not an end goal.
What have we
been doing wrong? What should we do going forward? Should we give up?
Over the last
4-5 years the focus of the development community has been around giving
money and maximizing inflows into developing countries. This has been
accompanied by restrictions. (e.g. if half of your budget comes from aid
then you would do your best not to offend those who give you the money.)
Conditionalities have only been modestly decreased from 200 to 190. This is
a massive restriction of policy space. Recall that during his presidential
campaign, as Lula’s ratings went up, interest rates on bonds went up at a
parallel rate. Lula was, in effect, compelled to promise not to default on
debt. The only other option was for Brazil to default and Lula begin his
term with a major financial crisis. Brazil is a wealthy country, rich in
natural resources. It should have the latitude to design its own
development path. Greater policy space is a key goal, and we need to focus
on resource outflows, not just on resource inflows.
Discussion
-
Brazil, Nigeria, India, and
Argentina all show signs of progress, but are not acting in cooperation
with the poorer countries. The interests of these countries are not
consistent with Malawi and Sri Lanka.
-
What are the best ways to
stop capital flight? I would like to hear the best ways to do that. What
about weak banking systems or progressive income taxes?
-
Capital flight is important,
but the issue of net resource transfer to developing countries is also
important. If taken as a whole capital moves for all sorts of reasons.
We need to narrow the focus. Our agenda needs to be in sync with
developing country agendas.
-
We need to map out the
reasons for net resource flow and analyze the map.
-
It would be interesting to do
the audit with a broader perspective. This audit would include the
money that is not seen as it leaves the country (e.g. transfer pricings,
illegal money, tax havens) Official audits miss this type of activity.
This would be an audit of selected countries on books and off books
flows.
-
Educate people on odious debt
to prevent the Suharto’s and Marcus’ of the world from doing it again.
Accurate accounting and reporting of odious debt.
-
The term “capital flight”
means different things including tax evasion and money laundering. It is
an ambiguous term that means moving money. We need to be clearer on what
we mean by capital flight. The term ‘dirty money’ is a better term to
describe the illegal transfers.
-
Since the 1960s a structure
has come about to facilitate the movement of resources out of developing
countries. Multinational corporations have been planting companies
everywhere and moving off-shore.
-
It is clear that Katrina has
changed the landscape for us. We can not ignore what happened there or
what is happening in the riots in France. This is an incredible
opportunity to link up these issues in the US and internationally. How
do we hit this opportunity head on?
-
Put trade back on the table.
Once debt is canceled the trend will reverse immediately by incurring
new debt. The US model is a failed development model that cannot
deliver, has not delivered and there is a growing deficit.
-
Maria, Pam and Jo Marie were
part of a group that wrote a case study on Reaganomics. We should do a
case study having Mississippi and Louisiana apply for a loan at the
World Bank. This case could show why the current model isn’t working.
-
Another option is a Town Hall
event that takes into account UN international issues paralleled with
domestic poverty. (E.g. look at how Wal-Mart devastates a small town
when it moves in and relate it to what the big transnational companies
are doing internationally.)
-
The US Social Forum has been
postponed until 2007.
-
We have not capitalized on
the repeated failures of the system. We need to highlight how much
countries are losing by playing within the rules. If the system has been
causing harm to a country for so long why haven’t the terms been changed
and why should a country engage in a system that has only caused
problems?
-
There is a growing power for
developing countries when they come together. Latin America has come
together to challenge the IFIs and the trade agenda.
-
One problem is the deceitful
way the Bush Administration has tried to win policy on the Hill by
reciting out-dated World Bank data. We need to reclaim the policy debate
and point out this deceit when it occurs.
-
What is a concrete ways to
get out of debt? There needs to be a proper way to deal with bankruptcy
problems.
-
We need prudential
regulations to dampen capital flows. Right now commodity prices are at
an all time high and it is a good time to hedge.
-
We need to look at the
quality of delivery of Aid and not just the quantity.
-
Attention spans of people are
limited. Look at the grassroots and connect the global to the local. Why
is this a voting issue in the UK and not in the US? E.g. the Millennium
Challenge Account was supposed to be $5 billion as in committed in
Monterrey, yet US Congress only approved $1.5 billion.
-
Need to be strategic and
visionary when discussing corruption and odious debt. The same channels
that bleed developing countries are used for terrorist financing.
-
In regard to resource flows
try a less paternalistic approach. Teach a man to fish, and then let
him fish, don’t cover him with restrictions. The problem with the fish
metaphor is that some people might not like to fish, or maybe there is a
problem of over fishing.
-
We need to highlight that
reducing poverty also builds peace. Serious poverty leads to violence as
does inequality and exclusion.
-
The MDG's will not be met
with business as usual. Even if we could achieve the MDGs it would only
partially reduces the death, suffering and environmental ruin resulting
from endemic global poverty. Humanitarian motivation is simply
insufficient to generate the resources need. Especially in war time,
nation rebuilding, extreme deficit, pandemic fear and a zero-sum
budget. Framing the MDGs within the context of achieving US national
security interests will be vital. Without a source of "new" money to
meet the MDGs (Tobin tax, carbon tax,...) any existing resources applied
to the MDGs will need to be shifted from other programs (domestic health
and education, agriculture, homeland security, DoD or Iraq...).
Part four: Finally,
how to best tread this path together? The lessons leant from working closely
together throughout the year and opportunities and pitfalls. How do we go
forward from here?
Facilitator: Emira
Woods, Institute for Policy Studies
Presentation by
Raymond Baker, Brookings Institution and Center for International Policy
We need to come
together with specific actions ranging widely across issues.
The outflow of
resources drains more money out than foreign money coming in by a 10 to 1
ratio. There is no way to make this formula work. It is legal to
bring into the US the proceeds of foreign crimes such as slave trading,
kidnapping, alien smuggling, and racketeering (see table 4.5 Specified
Unlawful Activities Under U.S. Anti-Laundering laws pages 187-188 of
Capitalisms Achilles’ Heel). 99.9% of this money coming in gets
deposited in US accounts on first presentation. How do we address this
issue? The world’s largest economy needs to eliminate the difference
between illegal crimes committed in the US and crimes committed abroad. The
US is way behind in this endeavor.
Suggested
Activities :
-
How do we get the US Congress
to consider legislation adopting the same lists of offenses barred under
US anti-money legislation, whether committed inside or outside the
Unites States? A concrete activity would be to write a letter to
Senators Grassley, Levin and Coleman calling for the US to eliminate the
difference between illegal crimes committed in the US and crimes
committed abroad. Jo Marie will work with Ray Baker to draft the letter
and circulate it for signatures. What we hope to get out of the letter
would be a congressional hearing on this topic and/or a GAO report.
-
How do we get Prime Minister
Tony Blair and Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown to consider
baring disguised corporations from making transfers into UK bank
accounts. The Patriot Act took shell banks off the table, how do we get
disguised corporations off the table? Sony will talk with the UK
development NGOs and communicate with Ray Baker.
-
How do we get the World Bank
to analyze the whole of illegal outflows from developing and
transitional economies – all components, corrupt, criminal, and
commercially tax evading? (No designated follow up; however, Center for
Global Development could possibly be interested in this.)
-
How do we get Kofi Annan to
appoint a high-level commission to examine the question of debt owed by
developing countries from a social perspective. This would shift the
discussion from the financial institutions to a social context.
-
How do we get the president
of Nigeria, Olusegun Obasanjo, to advocate to the Africa Union that
Paris Club negotiations will henceforth be undertaken in African
capitals. Having these discussions in the different venue would change
their dynamic. Ray Baker is prepared to draft a letter and then seek to
dispatch it to President Obasanjo to urge his adoption of this position.
He will work with Jo Marie. She will distribute letter to those
attending this meeting. (see below list) Also Jubilee may be interested
in follow-up here.
Other proposals
for Action
-
Michael Isimbabi will convene
a New Rules working group on taxes to get the ball rolling.
-
Sony Kapoor will be
participating in a UK parliament event on Thursday, Nov 9 on Capital
Flight, Poverty and the Role of the UK. (Relates to point 2 above)
-
Get the UN to take up the
issue of odious debt in an international legal manner.
-
Call for an inspection panel
to look at the World Bank’s structural policies.
-
Put together a portfolio of
successful economic policies.
-
Financial markets watch.
Increasing amount of impact and yet there is not a systematic way to
monitor the impacts.
-
When the World Bank team does
an evaluation of a country, send an alternative set of economists to
come up with an alternate framework. (Action Aid)
-
Map flows in and out of a
country (Sony Kapoor is doing this)
-
Look at lending guidelines to
open up the odious debt debate. The US has never publicly acknowledge
lending to dictators in past. (E.g. US lending to Uzbekistan.)
-
One problem is that we
duplicate too much, there needs to be a higher degree of cooperation and
a better way to divvy up tasks.
-
Reopen the debate on using
IMF gold to pay for IMF debt.
-
Follow-up conference on FFD
provides a framework for future collaboration. The FFD agenda is very
broad. Holding joint meetings with experts from the private sector,
government, academia, civil society organizations, and international
financial and standard-setting institutions is very energizing.
(E.g. One proposal on national development banks that came out of the
Multi-stakeholder dialogues held by the New Rules Coalition came from
entrepreneurs from Africa.) Broader cross-sectoral meetings are useful;
likewise collaboration between New York, NY and Washington, DC NGOs.
Follow up to
this Meeting:
Three meetings
that will provide forums for continuing this broad collaboration:
1. Jubilee USA
Network Annual Meeting (November 10-11, 2005)
2. Post Hong
Kong Ministerial Meeting debriefing sessions (December, 2005)
3. Status
report on negotiations leading up to FFD + 5 (January, 2006)
Notes and
participant lists will be distributed from this meeting.
Minutes: Jamie
Baker, New Rules; with Jo Marie Griesgraber, New Rules.
Meeting Participants
|
NAME |
ORGANIZATION |
|
Raymond W. Baker |
Brookings Institution / CIP |
|
Jamie Baker
|
New Rules for Global Finance Coalition |
|
Dan Beeton
|
Center for Economic Policy Research |
|
Coralie Corky' Bryant |
Columbia University
|
|
Aldo Caliari |
Center of Concern
|
|
Hope Chu |
Fifty Years is Enough |
|
Randall Dodd |
Financial Policy Forum |
|
Sameer Dossani |
Fifty Years is Enough |
|
Séamus P. Finn |
Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate |
|
Jo Marie Griesgraber
|
New Rules for Global Finance Coalition |
|
Sony Kapoor |
Christian Aid & Tax Justice Networl |
|
Debyani Kar |
Jubilee USA Network |
|
Jennifer Nordin |
Center for International Policy |
|
Kate Phillips-Barrasso |
United Nations Foundation |
|
Maria Riley |
Center of Concern
|
|
Rick Rowden |
Action Aid USA |
|
Lenny Sapozhnikov
|
InterAction |
|
Frank Schroeder |
Friedrich Ebert Stiftung New York |
|
Pamela Sparr |
InterAction |
|
Juergen Stetten |
Friedrich Ebert Stiftung New York |
|
Irfan ul Haque |
Independent Consultant to G-24 |
|
Neil Watkins |
Jubilee USA Network |
|
Emira Woods |
Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) |
|
Chuck Woolery |
Formerly Chair, United Nations Association Council of Organizations,
Washington DC |
|
|
|
|
PARTICIPANTS BY PHONE |
|
|
|
|
Kristin Dawkins |
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy |
|
Michael Isimbabi |
African Leadership and Progress Network |
|
Patricia Jurewicz |
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy |
|
Shiney Varghese |
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy |
