Last Friday afternoon, I was at the
Kenyatta International Convention Centre trying to glean what was going on with
the talks at the 10th Ministerial Meeting of the World Trade
Organisation. There were very thin pickings on the ground at the KICC. The
meeting had been expected to conclude at noon on the day, but (as had been
half-expected, not least by this column) the talks had gone into overtime.
Fellow reporters and I were thus trying to find out whether the negotiations
were any closer to conclusion, and when we’d expect to have a closing ceremony.
In addition, we needed to know what shape of final deal we would have, or even
if we would have that at all, and thus whether Nairobi 2015 would go into the
annals as a success or not.
Covering international negotiations is not
like covering President Obama or the Pope. While details of the tours by these
dignitaries are shared well in advance of their planes landing in Nairobi, much
of the drama in international negotiations takes place in documents. Far too
much happens behind the scenes, in whispered consultations in corridors, and
late at night when most camera crews have packed up for the night. Acceptance
or rejection of a deal can turn on a carelessly worded phrase, and talks can be
extended for hours because of a difference of language, and inaccuracy in
translation.
On Friday, I had received a call from a highly
placed source, indicating an intense disagreement between the negotiators from
India and Africa, and turning on the presence and scale of export subsidies for
agricultural crops. But even as I tried to shake the trees to know how serious
the disagreement was, Indian opinion-shapers had been busy trying to ensure
that they wouldn’t be blamed if a deal was not forthcoming from Nairobi.
Articles circulating on the Internet plaintively tried to paint India as
negotiating in good faith, and that any divergence in views was a genuine one,
informed by the need to protect the interests of all developing countries.
We then received text messages, and
personal urgings in the pressroom and at the lobby of the KICC, to attend a
press conference in the late afternoon, which would be addressed by Amina
Mohammed. She was playing a dual role at this meeting. She was the Chair,
meaning that all deferred to her, but she still remains Kenya’s Foreign
Minister. This duality, and the uncertainty about what was going on and whether
we would manage to finish the meeting on time, made her press conference a top
draw, and it was standing room only by the time the 5:15 scheduled start time
rolled around. The drama was heightened when members of the Kenyan and other
delegations started streaming in. it turned out that there wasn’t much in the
presser, except for vehement denials that there was a rift within the
developing country bloc.
The interesting thing, outside all the
drama of the WTO Ministerial, is how much Kenya had gotten from the meeting. I
had asked to Mukhisa Kituyi, the Director General of the United Nations
Conference on Trade and Development, whether the location of an international
meeting matters, or whether it was just a backdrop against which exhausted
delegates negotiated. He feels that having the talks in Africa does help to
give our issues prominence. The Doha deliberations in 2001 were given added
urgency by the September 11th attacks that year. The Nairobi
negotiations would, by the same token, bring African issues to the fore.
What has become evident in the past week in
Nairobi is that, in some ways, Kenya has begun punching above its weight. The
presence of both Dr. Kituyi and Ms. Mohammed at the pinnacle of trade diplomacy
does mean that Kenya has some clout, and the list of wins we have on the
sidelines is quite impressive. Kenya managed to negotiate billions of shillings
in loans, grants and project funds with the array of trade ministers present
here, and this is not to be sniffed at.
The question, as usual, is whether we can
keep up the momentum. If we are indeed recognised as a force in trade
diplomacy, do we have enough people in the pipeline to ensure that we maintain
our role in this crucial part of the international scene?
Also, our outsized influence in this field
doesn’t bypass the fact that we’re still a middle-sized country of quite modest
means. How do we leverage our expertise in international diplomacy to ensure
that the country meets and exceeds its foreign policy objectives?
Nairobi 2015 has opened up quite a number
of important eyes to these possibilities. The way we conducted ourselves has
shown that we can play on the same field with the very best. The challenge, as
usual, is to ensure that, drama or no drama, we are able to score the important
goals that will drive forward our clout as a country.
Also published in the Daily Nation on 22 December 2015
Comments
Post a Comment