Dialogue in Pursuit of Development - Are you looking for one of ...

24
any participant is using advantages in power or access to information to
impose their will on the others. The purpose of the present essay is to examine
to what extent it is possible to increase the space for ‘dialogue’ in the
intercourse of development partners by making the preconditions clearer
and by changing some of the rules that guide discussions between partners
in the aid relationship. The prospects differ between discussion forums depending
on their function as well as on the imbalance in power and information
access between the parties. We shall first consider the so-called policy
dialogue, which has attracted more public attention than other more technical
exchanges.
Policy dialogue: collective learning experience or blackmail?
In July 1853, when commodore Matthew Perry anchored his frigates in the
Japanese port of Uraga and threatened to blow the town to pieces if the
Shogun refused to receive a letter from the American president requesting
that Japan open its ports to US trade, this was but the latest phase in a long
‘policy dialogue’ that had not gone very well for the Americans. After forcing
the Japanese to receive the letter, Perry sailed and said he would return
in one year’s time for an answer. He left no one in doubt about what would
happen if the answer was negative.
Commodore Perry’s mission is a classic example of a negotiating partner
increasing his leverage to strengthen his position in the game. His threat
level may sound a bit heavy today, but only a bit. While most countries
today have moral reservations as well as legal protection against blackmail
and extortion perpetrated against their own citizens, such practices are not
only permitted in the intercourse with foreign governments but often celebrated
as great victories of diplomacy. When the European Commission
used all its economic and political might including aid and trade in 1994 to
force Namibia to open its waters to European fishing fleets, it was a modern
replay of Perry’s visit to the Shogun. These are examples of exchanges that
have lost their character of dialogue and turned into power games where
the stronger party will impose its will on the weaker one.
Experience from the policy dialogue of the 1990s indicates that the
stronger party – mostly the donor or International Financial Institution (IFI)
side – will get better results from the dialogue if it uses a less heavy-handed
approach. Attempts to bully African countries into accepting Structural
Adjustment Programmes (SAPs) often raised hackles about infringement of
sovereignty in negotiations which had otherwise been conducted in an open
and productive atmosphere (Devarajan et al., 2001, p. 26). The World Bank’s
review concluded that results would have been better if the IFIs had shown
more sensitivity to the views of the African countries.