A comparative study of the official policies of
3 China and India have similar positions on the principles and major issues of the post-2015 agenda
In a comparative perspective, this current paper comes to the conclusion that China and India have similar positions on the principles and major issues of the post-2015 agenda, as reflected in their respective position papers (GoI 2013b; GoC 2013).
3.1 China and India both highly value the United Nations Millennium Development Declaration and the MDGs, and have actively participated in the consultations on the agenda
China says:
The MDGs, formulated on the basis of the Millennium Declaration adopted in 2000, are the most comprehensive, authoritative and explicit set of goals of the international community in the field of development. They are
Chuankai Jiao
German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE)
90
important indicators for measuring the level of development and guiding international development cooperation (UNDP / MFA 2013, Part I).
India says that the
government of India attaches great importance to the international deliberations on a Post-2015 Development Agenda as this will not only define the key international development priorities but the overall template for global cooperation in the coming decade and more (GoI 2013b, 27).
3.2 China and India both argue that the post-2015 agenda should be based on the MDGs
According to China’s paper, one of the guiding principles is continuity; those unaccomplished goals of the MDGs should be included in the development goals beyond 2015. With regard to key areas and priorities, the first goal should still be eradicating poverty and hunger, which was the first goal of the MDGs too.
India proposes that the post-2015 development agenda must remain rooted at its core on poverty eradication, which was identified at Rio+20 as the greatest global challenge. India argues that the post-2015 development agenda should retain the core development priorities embodied in the MDGs, without supporting further sub-dividing of the MDG into sub-goals and without adding new indicators.
3.3 China and India insist that the post-2015 process should be conducted under the UN framework
China insists that the process of exploring the post-2015 framework should seek consensus through consultation, and relevant consultations should take place under the UN framework. It should be a process led by member states in a just, democratic and transparent manner, giving full play to the United Nations in leading the organisation and coordination of the development agenda. In short, China emphasises the role of the United Nations.
India mentions that the MDGs were not ratified by the United Nations General Assembly; member states did not even have the opportunity to participate in the discussion of the goals, and therefore there are flaws in
the legality and legitimacy of MDGs. “Unlike the MDGs, the post-2015 development agenda must be arrived at through an inclusive and transparent inter-governmental process under the United Nations” (GoI 2013b, 28).
3.4 China and India are of the opinion that the post-2015 agenda should preserve simplicity
China argues that an overloaded agenda may deviate from the theme of development. All goals should be simple, clear and practical (UNDP / MFA 2013). Similarly, India maintains that the post-2015 development agenda must preserve the simplicity of the narrative. It should focus on the key development challenges, limited in number. It is important not to overburden the agenda with a ‘laundry list’ of world problems. “The ‘development’
agenda must remain ‘growth-focused’ aiming to spur and support robust economic growth in developing countries, and must remain rooted at its core on poverty eradication” (GoI 2013b, 28) .
3.5 China and India share similar views on key areas and priorities
China is of the opinion that, besides eradicating poverty and hunger, the key areas and priorities should include aging populations; education; basic health care systems; women; children; demographic growth; social security systems; vulnerable groups; and inclusive economic growth; employment of better quality; a just and open environment for trade; liberalisation and the facilitation of trade and investment.
India also argues that the important subjects, besides eradicating poverty and economic growth, should include non-communicable diseases, lifestyles, mental health and gender equity. Notably, neither China nor India considers subjects such as ‘security’, ‘conflict’, ‘human rights’ and ‘governance’ to be goals of the post-2015 agenda.
Chuankai Jiao
German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE)
92
3.6 China and India concur on the need for reforming international economic governance systems
China argues that the problems facing developing countries, such as insufficient funding, lack of technical means and weak capacities, have not been adequately addressed. Development capacity in developing countries is limited; the international community should provide active assistance to them. China maintains that the development agenda should increase the representation and voice of developing countries in the global governance system. India believes that emerging economies are increasingly becoming an important force in the international community, but the current global governance structure does not adequately reflect this reality; whenever a crisis arises, the developed countries transfer risks to developing countries.
India argues that, if there is a discussion of governance issues, the first subject should be the structure of global governance. The UN Security Council should increase the representation of developing countries; the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank and other institutions should increase the shares of emerging economies (GoI 2013b).
In addition, China and India also have proposed strengthening the
‘multilateral trading system’, and oppose all forms of protectionism. The two countries have highlighted the principle of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ (CBDR), however, they both do not provide any details on the implementation of this principle.
Unfortunately, both China and India say almost nothing about their own domestic transformation, although the post-2015 agenda is universal and calls for the transformation of all economies and societies. Nor have they addressed their roles as new donors as the international society would expect.
India almost says nothing in this regard, while China seems to be ready to explain its activities in South-South cooperation to the outside world.