Q.
While the non-aligned movement appears to include a group of nations which have shared problems, the Commonwealth countries do not necessarily have these shared problems. From that point of view, do you think that the Commonwealth countries have a uniformity of approach to the new economic order?
A.
Excepting the developed countries, most of the members of Commonwealth are members of the non-aligned movement. With the exception of Britain, they were all once colonies of the British Empire. As such they share many experiences and problems of pre-independence and post-independence periods.
Q.
Did the Commonwealth conference refer to any non-alignment ideologies?
A.
The question of having a new economic order was a nonalignment ideology. The necessity of a dialogue between the South and the North, the question of transfer of resources from the developed to the developing world, the question of indebtedness of the developing world, the problem of transferring an appropriate technology from the developed to the developing world were some of the ideas specifically discussed in the Commonwealth conference.
Q.
What I was wanting to ask was whether, when there is a polarisation of views, the dialogue seems to run into difficulties. Whether it is the non-aligned conference or the Commonwealth countries conference, in the last analysis, it becomes a "north-south" dialogue. In between it looks as if the common stream of understanding becomes more, and more remote. At least it appears so.
A.
I see your point. It is somewhat true. I do not think these conferences have succeeded in making an impact on the problems I referred to, but they have certainly helped to create an understanding of the feelings of those countries. This at least has helped us to start a dialogue between the South and the North on specific issues at the Paris conference, though this conference also produced nothing. The developed world has not yet realised the significance and seriousness of the problems of the developing world. They still look at them as a problem of charity not as a question of sharing the basic economic prosperity and the benefits of trade and technology.