& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

The hope for new world order

Hasanuzzaman
On the backdrop of global financial crisis, the G20 top leaders, who met in London on April 2, sought to rewrite the rules of global finance and reshape financial institutions.
They also aimed to equip those with necessary arsenal in order to effectively combat the ongoing crisis.
The rich nations' group, which together accounts for nearly 90 per cent of the world economy, was formed following the Asian financial crisis to discuss the then issues tied to financial meltdown. According to the G20 Accord signed in the London Summit, the leaders are committed to [undertake] an unprecedented and concerted fiscal expansion, which will save or create millions of jobs which would otherwise have been destroyed, and that will, by the end of next year, amount to $5 trillion, raise output by 4 per cent, and accelerate the transition to a green economy'.
So what has been achieved in the G20 meeting?
To put it simply, the 29-point G20 leaders' statement has addressed two key issues, from the perspective of Bangladesh and countries who have witnessed strong structural transformation in terms of their economies over the years, from being aiddependent to trade-reliant, and, also (partially, if not entirely) a prescription to accommodate the concerns that have been put forward by the G20 leaders.
Firstly, in the aftermath of any global crisis whether in the domains of financial or agricultural, it is imperative to revive the world economy. It needs to be mentioned here that the G20 Accord stipulates a global deal worth $1.1 trillion and when disaggregated, under the new funding commitments, $500 billion has been pledged for the IMF so that it can carry on its lending activities; $250 billion to boost global trade, which is expected to be in the form of loans or guarantees and made available over the next two years through the Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) and another $250 billion to establish an 'overdraft facility' within the IMF to help countries cope wilh the crisis.
Nevertheless, such a large figure, primarily aimed at stirring up the almost stagnated world economy, overshadows the way the world actually works. Even the lion's share of the deal, allocated for the IMF, will not come about unconditionally. Furthermore, the nearly one-fourth amount of $250 billion, meant for boosting world trade, will not be easily accessible by countries that really need it. Given that the global financial crisis has thrown many banks (which were considered to be successful in the past) into trouble, banks in general have become more vigilant over providing credit without being warranted of its return.
Secondly, the G20 Accord shed some light on the darkening economic landscape of many countries that rely on trade to maintain their record GDP growth rates in recent years. The World Bank has estimated that an additional 50 million people will fall into poverty because of the enduring global recession. The G20 leaders have committed themselves to conclude the Doha Round of trade negotiations, which were
launched under the auspices of the WTO almost eight years ago. Despite the progress made in many areas (especially in the annexure of the non-agricultural market access (NAMA) modality, developed countries, particularly the EU and the US, and also developing countries such as India and Brazil, did not share the same opinions in the agriculture text (especially with regard to the issues relating to Special Safeguard Mechanisms (SSMs)).
Furthermore, they have also committed to attain the millennium development goals (MDGs) and also to realise their respective overseas development assistance (ODA) pledges made in the Gleneagles Summit, including commitments on the Aid for Trade (AIT) initiative. This initiative was mooted in the Fifth Ministerial meeting in Hong Kong in 2005 to assist developing countries, particularly the least developed ones, in meeting the trade-related needs and integrating them into the world trading system.
In such encouraging signals emanating from the G20 Accord,
one is obliged to inquire how far Bangladesh can avert the crisis fallout, since the country’s external sector is being increasingly integrated with the globalised economy.
Trade figures for the first half of FY2008-09 reveals that overall earnings from exports were still significant. For now, it can be safely affirmed that Bangladeshi exports, excluding jute goods, tea. frozen food and leather products, are not yet fully feeling the real pinch of the global financial crisis (perhaps because of the inelastic nature of demand for our exports). 1 lowever. services exports may come under severe pressure in the immediate outlook and Bangladeshi workers are experiencing retrenchment in affected countries and as a result of the global contraction being felt in many developed countries, the prospect of going abroad is being choked.
Nevertheless, such mixed performances in terms of exports of goods and services, depict an increasingly volatile global market.
Despite encouraging words frpm our policymakers, 1 am doubtful whether the tornado in world economy is going to weather off so early before it gets gloomier. It can be hoped that the Doha Round will be revived at least by the yearend. On the same issue of WTO < related affairs, it is worth mentioning here that there remain many ambiguities on AfT's different pillars or type of funding, which requires further clarification.
For now, it can only be hoped dial countries like Bangladesh are able to participate in such summits, even if not as members but as observers. Given the huge global deal of $1.1 trillion, predominantly meant for struggling economies, Bangladesh needs to do necessary homew ork in preparing herself to gain an access to such funds. It needs to be highlighted here that the Centre for Policy-Dialogue (CPD) has prepared a report on 'Aid for Trade: Needs Assessment from Bangladesh Perspective' which could be used by the respective policymakers in taking a more informed decision when accessing funds under the AfT scheme.
To conclude, the G20 Accord embodies a large measure of hope for the trade-dependent developing countries. It will, perhaps, provide the impetus for reviving the world economy and make the workings of the global financial system more transparent and at the same time, ensure that the 1 ■ gains that have been achieved as a result of trade liberalisation and the process of globalisation are not entirely reversed. Nevertheless, setting aside the summit's economic connotation, the political corollary at global level is bound to have long-term implications. On the one hand, many scholars have predicted a new world order which has been attributed to the strength of G20, while some others have raised doubts whether the G20 wall be able to maintain its cohesiveness when the crisis is over. In my opinion, given the faith of leaders on both sides of the Atlantic in cooperation and coordination as essential pre-requisites for continuing economic growth, the G20 is likely to evolve into a stronger entity with a solid foothold in the global political economy regime.
The writer is a researcher at the Centre (or Policy Dialogue (CPD) and he can be reachedathasanuzzaman@cpd.org bd