Johannesburg — Representatives from developing countries frequently hold separate caucus meetings at international conferences and gatherings to discuss ways of improving South-South cooperation. These meetings are held together by the belief that the poorer countries, generally those of the South, receive the short end of the stick in international conventions and trade conditions, according to Francis Kornegay, senior researcher at the Centre for Policy Studies here.

Kornegay has served as a congressional staffer with members of the Congressional Black Caucus. He frequently contributes articles to South African newspapers and recently published a book titled 'Pax-Afroasiatic? Revisiting Bandung in a Changing World Order'.

IPS correspondent Steven Lang spoke to Kornegay about how the concept of South-South cooperation emerged:

Francis Kornegay: Its roots really go back to the 1950s with the Bandung Conference [which brought together 29 African and Asian countries and ultimately led to the establishment of the Non-Aligned Movement] at a time when the Cold War was getting underway between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. Many African and Asian countries were just coming into independence and were faced with being caught up in this bipolar power struggle, and therefore feeling a need for some kind of non-aligned flexibility vis-à-vis both camps.

The countries of the South have for a long time been preoccupied with jointly, rather than on their own, seeking to advance their positions in the international arena. So there has been quite a bit of continuity in this. Recently, it has taken on new forms with the developing countries coming together in the G20 to contest terms of the global trading order within the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Doha trade negotiations. Of course here, India, Brazil and South Africa have played a major role in attempting to mobilise other developing countries around these negotiations. That actually set the context within which the three countries came together in 2003 to form the India, Brazil, South Africa tri-lateral dialogue forum (IBSA).

IPS: To what extent is IBSA a political rather than a trade organisation?

FK: I would say that it is basically a political platform, even though trade issues have tended to predominate because of the fact that we've been in prolonged, uncertain negotiations surrounding the WTO. But the real focus of IBSA is a political platform for the three countries to dialogue with one another in developing synergy in issues that are much broader than trade. They have to do with the need for transforming the institutional architecture of the international order -- here you are talking about not just trade, you are talking about United Nations Security Council reform, the need to restructure the Bretton Woods institutions (the World Bank and the IMF) and any number of other political issues that impact on global governance.

IPS: Will the fact that they produce similar products ultimately cap the ability of the three IBSA countries to develop further trade?

FK: Possibly, if you look at South Africa's lengthy trade negotiation agenda -- it has been negotiating a trade agreement between the Southern African Customs Union (SACU) and MERCOSUR, the South American common market for quite some time and there does not seem to be an imminent conclusion to it. I don't think that necessarily puts a limit on the potential of the three countries to work together. And the reason I say this is because within the framework of IBSA there are more than 14 or 15 sectoral working groups, where you have trilateral cooperation on a whole range of issues from energy and the environment to education, transportation, defence -- you name it. There is a whole trilateral cooperation agenda -- so far there may not be speedy progress on the trade front -- but that does not mean by any stretch of the imagination that there will not be progress along other areas.

IPS: But what you are saying is that there is more substance coming out of the political dimension?

FK: Yes, I would say so, but that cannot be separated totally from the economic dimension.

IPS: An institution like the G20, is that going to have any impact on South- South cooperation?

FK: Well, I think it will. The G20, the IBSA and the New Asia Africa Strategic Partnership along with older initiatives such as the Non-Aligned Movement and the G77 these all have a role to play in moving things along the path of a more equitable order.

IPS: Would it be fair to say that the focus is moving away from the older movements such as the Non-Aligned Movement and moving towards the more focussed institutions like IBSA and G20, etc.?

FK: I would say so. Recently that may be the case, but I do not think that groupings like NAM can be written off. I think that there are issues that are likely to come up that will continue to make these older generation blocs relevant. For example NAM -- though it has not been very visible -- has had a bearing on the whole issue of Iran and the nuclear question. It is quite possible that as time goes on, issues of nuclear weapons, non-proliferation and so forth will resonate in the Non-Aligned Movement as well as in IBSA and in other quarters.

I think that you will see an interplay between newer generation, South-South cooperation organisations like IBSA and older generation Non-Aligned Movement, G77 groupings on a number of fronts. Depending on the issue -- where issues are more economic and trade related you may see more of a focus on the G20, where you get into more of a security, political, geo- political focus you will be looking more at NAM.