V
It may seem ineffective, but we need G8 in order to face the daunting future
Common action against shared perils like poverty and climate change may not be forthcoming. Still, it is our best hope
The G8 summit, which opens today on Hokkaido, in Japan, conjures images of a political A&E ward on a Saturday night. President Bush, leader of the greatest nation on earth, is discredited and almost time-expired. Gordon Brown leads a government most of whose own members want him to disappear into a hole.
Silvio Berlusconi presides over a gangster culture that renders it impossible for Italy to present a serious face to the world. Nicolas Sarkozy should enjoy the prestige of a French president secure in office until 2012, but he has grievously injured his own power base by his first-year antics. Russia's new president, Dmitry Medvedev, may well add up to nothing, in the absence of Vladimir Putin to tell him what to think.
All this matters, when the G8 is called upon to address the gravest issues of modern times. In some years, in advance of these gatherings, national sherpas are obliged to scrabble around exchanging emails, to identify a plausible agenda for their bosses. On Hokkaido, by contrast, they are debating shocking evidence on climate change, together with economic slowdown in the wake of soaring food and energy prices and world poverty.
These are daunting challenges, which most of the assembled leaders are ill-positioned to address. At G8s, unlike other international forums where big bureaucracies represent national interests, personalities matter. To get results the Japanese, as hosts, must exercise impressive powers of leadership. Instead, there are already signs that they will pursue their usual search for consensus, which means the triumph of a lowest common denominator.
G8 meetings can no longer carry conviction until China and India are granted full membership. There are also arguments for admitting representatives of other important global interests, for instance Brazil, South Africa, maybe an Islamic nation. The difficulty is that, if the group expands significantly, it will forfeit the intimacy which is hailed as its most important virtue. Chinese leaders are always uncomfortable in informal discussion, preferring to address carefully prepared scripts. Cynics observe that most of the communique for the Hokkaido meeting has already been drafted. The view of G8s as mere theatrical performances is liable to gain ground if the group expands.
Yet, whatever their limitations, it seems sorely mistaken to dismiss these summits as wastes of time and money. Globalisation both of problems and commerce is the dominant force of our times. It must therefore be useful, indeed indispensable, for national leaders to make human contact with each other. Bilateral conversations, even hampered by the necessity for interpreters, possess significant value.
The most notorious G8 of recent times was that held at Gleneagles in 2005. Not only was the occasion overshadowed for the hosts by the horror of the London bombings, but extravagant promises were made to attack world poverty. These won acclaim for Tony Blair, who was perceived as having responded to the appeals of Sir Bob Geldof with energy and success.
Unfortunately, of course, much of the pledged cash has never been delivered. It was the G8's Alberto Vilar moment. Vilar, you may remember, was a tycoon who promised huge sums to good causes, including the Royal Opera House, but who failed in the end to make good on those pledges.
Last weekend I put the Vilar point to a Gleneagles veteran, a diplomat. He responded that he thought cynicism misplaced, about both G8s in general and the Scottish one in particular. It was an important achievement to set targets, he said, even if they are still unmet. As a result of the 2005 agreement, more money for poor countries has been forthcoming. A fortnight ago, the Japanese significantly increased their international aid commitment. They were moved to act explicitly because, as Hokkaido hosts, they needed to be seen to display generosity.
Unfortunately for the developing world, and for Africa in particular, most G8 members this week will be more interested in the plight of their own societies than of anybody else's. Lip service will be paid to good causes. But the overwhelming preoccupation of leaders will be the impact of rising food and energy costs upon the world's biggest economies.
Tensions will soon become apparent, between the perils posed by climate change and the clamour for relief from threatened living standards. Democracies being what they are, the latter force is likely to gain priority. The power of green lobbies will diminish in the lean years ahead, just as in supermarkets cheap food is likely to gain ground against expensive organic products.
Any political party in the west that wants to get itself elected will have to offer an electorate prospects of secure energy sources and stable food prices, even if both carry additional environmental risks and costs. We are likely to hear much more about both nuclear power and GM crops. Most of the G8 leaders know this. The more extravagant the green rhetoric that emerges, the less likelihood there is that its authors will mean what they say. Idealism shrinks in times of economic stress.
No doubt the summit will spare some unkind private words for Robert Mugabe, especially as South Africa's president Thabo Mbeki is calling in on Hokkaido. But in the case of Zimbabwe, also, breadbasket issues at home make national leaders less interested in addressing moral ones abroad.
The American guru Richard Haass wrote recently in Foreign Affairs journal that rather than a multi-polar world, we are moving into a non-polar one. It is becoming progressively difficult to mobilise an international quorum in support of any objective, however worthy and important. This reflects not only the US's loss of moral authority, but also a dilution of power in consequence of globalism, which makes it ever harder for any nation to forge a consensus in support of decisive action.
This works to the advantage of tyrants and mischief-makers. The EU, for instance, should be presenting a united front to prevent the Russians from using their newfound energy clout to blackmail individual nations. Instead, much to the delight of the Kremlin, each EU member state is scrabbling to extract the best bilateral deal it can get from Moscow. The UN security council shows itself increasingly weak and more anachronistic. Nato is atrophying. The IMF and World Bank face growing sceptical scrutiny.
Capitalist societies found life much less complicated in the cold war era, when it was perceived as essential to follow strong US leadership amid the threat from the Soviet Union. Those days have gone. If the world's major powers are henceforward to get anything done, it must be through the concerted efforts of members of such bodies as the G8. Today, unfortunately, most still prefer to hang separately than together. Our global predicament may have to get a good deal worse before they acknowledge that common action against shared perils must transcend the familiar, disastrously outdated pursuit of national interests.
It is hard to see what good the G8, other than furthering the already entrenched and established privilege and power relationships adn imbalances, can really do. However, if they are going to meet then we need to engage with process and at least try and influence the agenda - it's part of having something to which to hold them to account should the day ever come that we are able to enforce anything. But like the UN and all these other insitutions there is no enforceability or accountability.
But the other point that is missing in the g8 is there is rarely, indeed one might say never, any gendered analysis of the differential impacts of policies and decisions on women (50% at least of the world's population adn differentially affected by all sorts of issues such as climate change, refugee flows, food, fuel, economics). We need to be ensuring that decision makers are making informed and relevant decisions fully seized of how it will affect different people differently - not necessarily more or worse or less but just differently and needing a different strategy.
The world needs for the G8 to be disbanded. The problems we face will never be solved at an international level where there are no checks and balances on corruption.
Our problems will not be solved by those whose only interest it is to extend their own power and benefit the corporations which bankroll them.
Our problems can only be solved at a local level. From the bottom up people can unite across the world for THEIR own interests.
The wealthy are opposed to us, the powerful are opposed to us, the special interests are opposed to us. As much damage as they inflict on us, they do more harm to those struggling in the developing and third world.
The people are the enemy of political and corporate elites and their propaganda mongerers.
We need local democracy, where nobody can inflict their minority ideology, political sellouts and corporate scams on us from thousands of miles away or indeed in our own town.
Only when communities have the power to forge their own destinies can we even begin to address the real issues.
Until then we are doomed to be sold out by our kleptomanic, corporatist, imperialist politicans through their media mouthpieces and spokesmodels advertising their latest humanatarian/security excuse for a land/resource grab, more funding for their billionaire friends latest 'business' scam or extra financial support for their dictator friends in third world countries who are stealing from, murdering and enslaving their people with my tax money.
'Internationalism' is a fashionable political ideal today (not amongst ordinary people anywhere), in reality it is a different word for imperialism. This global fight among the 'superpowers' and wannabe contenders are the greatest threat to the world today.
Nuclear war will vapourise us all before global warming does any harm. Everything the powers that be are doing are bringing us closer to that potential reality.
As Albert Einstein said, the fourth world war will be fought with sticks and stones and he was right. We are already in the foetal stages of a third world war which could likely explode at any moment. Yet nobody seems to notice or care.
What should disturb everybody, what should be reported on the front page of every newspaper are the warnings from certain American politicians.
I was listening to a radio interview with American congressman Ron Paul (a republican) the other day and he said two very important things:
1 That his collegues were discussing WHEN, not if, WHEN they were going to bomb Iran. They are wondering whether it would be better to do so before or after the American election!
2 Many of his collegues were saying "if only we could nuke Iran". (!!!)
Bush is looking for an excuse, an attack on Iran could push up oil prices to over 400 dollars a barrel, the ripples of such an act would be devastating. (Remember, he and most of his cabinet have interests in the oil industry)
US journalist, Seymour Hersh (google him) has recently revealed that the US is supporting covert terrorist activities in Iran in an attempt to incite them to do something that would give them a reason to bomb.
The problem is that if you centralise power at such a high level, so far away from the people things like this are possible.
If you have no respect for your own borders, you will actively disrespect other peoples.
If you have all the power at the top, those funding the interests at the top will be writing the policies.
The G8 represents industries whose interests are in direct conflict with that of us and our fellow world citizens.
The G8 representatives have nothing to fear from war, hunger or pestilence.
So considering their other interests; such as starting wars, making medical treatment and food unattainable to the poor and thereby facilitating deaths cold hand...
Why do we consider them as part of the solution?
They are clearly a big part of the problem. They and their friends make a killing (in more ways than one) from all these problems and it also facilitates the passing of their draconian legislations to further entrench their hold on global power...
Somehow, with these people in charge, I see no end to any crisis.
Who win? Who loses?
Its the 21st century...
Forget the fear: choose love.
Gordon Brown whinges about the last , 2005, set of "promises" not being met , but he's broke too. He can't even afford decent patrol vehicles for british troops on operations, so they die .
Sorry Max, this was a lousy article . It covered a lot of ground, very sketchily, and in the end got nowhere.
It's a good thing the G8 really cares about solving these problems! Just like the Bilderberg Group, CFR, Federal Reserve, World Bank, WTO, etc. are all great humanitarians that through the miracle of free market economics are making the world a better place. I'm beginning to believe that the human race doesn't deserve to make it to the next century. We are a joke!
G8 is nothing but a private club, where the head of state with their entourage meet every year, at the cost of over a billion, to hear each other and pat their own fat assed backs. The fat cats among them live high on the hog at the tax payers expense and generate more non binding hot air. No doubt it may help if these high and mighty were really concerned about the rest of the world.
Most of what that they need to discuss can be done without having to travel and meet each years in a different country. For example, George W, Bush's trip cost to the US taxpayers for that 747, all the escort aircraft, SUVs , the armored Limo the entourage etc is is close to $250,000 per hour.
The G8 is not interested in solving problems!
It is interested in allowing capital to profit from these huge problems regardless of any possible 'solution' that may involve.
Food crisis? Wheel on the GM producers. Oil crisis? Bring in the US nuclear industry. Inflation crisis? Hold back wages but let prices rip. These will provide some sort of 'solution' but that will be for the profits of capital, rather than the crisis of people.
Etc, etc ad infinitum. Until we have had enough of it, that is.
Mr Hastings, this piece reminds me of the guy who used to walk along Oxford St in the 80s with his placards advising less meat and sex.
Is the end of the world nigh? Are the issues the gravest of modern times? (How modern would that be for example?) Are there more or less poor in the world compared with say 10 years ago?
G8 is a complete waste of time and, more to the point, money. It is a theatre for elected representatives to do what they do best : bullshit. And the electorate seems to let them get away with it.
Just a few points :
Yes bilateral meetings are useful even through interpretors, the problem is that you have to have the experience of international life to make sense of the meeting and you have to have a broad education, intelligence and independent judgment. Messrs Brown, Berlusconi, Bush and Sarkozy dont qualify : Angie almost certainly does and Mr Fukuda might ; as for Mr Harper and Mr Medvedev/Putin (I wouldnt be so dismissive of Mr Medvedev, Mr Hastings) I dont know but I suspect not.
Better to use video-conferencing and rely on the normal diplomatic channels. The money saved could be dividended back to the electorate who can decide for themselves whether to give to the starving poor. If some of you think that a hard thing to say then remember that all good causes have access to plenty of funds directly raised from the public : the Tsunami in the FE raised more funds than the agencies could manage, and what did the local and afflicted population do? They re-built their homes at sea-level again.
Grave issue, climate change? Yes. Action? None.
The oil price rise is very convenient for the politicians. Not our fault! Speculators! Without them the price would drop! OK you political smart arses, bet against the speculators – but you wont because the higher price, you can blame on someone else, and the carbon taxes which you should have introduced years ago have been effectively introduced by the market.
An oil price rise changes people's behaviour : people use less oil and business people look for substitutes. Thank goodness for humanity's sake, and it wont be long before the price of alternative energy is less than the market price of oil, but G8's role is about as significant (at the time of writing) as Mr Sarkozy's in rescuing Madame Betancourt.
Globalisation, daunting challenge? Yes for the developed countries because they will all suffer reductions in levels of consumption. But for developing countries? You must be joking, they see it as an opportunity.
As for the supposed trade-off between growth and green : this is a nonsensical point – if we become greener we consume in a different way, there doesnt necessarily have to be a reduction in our standard of living.
That's enough for the moment. I shant do aid for two reasons : it drives me nuts and I have already posted on this on other threads. Have a nice day all.
G8 and similar organisations are needed to address a plethora of intensifying challenges (largely surrounding resource use and the distribution and consumption of large scale negative externalities).
However, as the article suggests these organisations (and one may easily generalise the argument) are themselves riven with sectional and sectarian interests. The failure of most actors (whether individual people or supra-individual entities such as firms, NGOs, governments, etc) to avoid the social dilemmatic and social trap (cf Platt) features of collective actions (eg. economic activity) may well doom all.
When the USSR 'collapsed' the US opportunity to show leadership by accepting that its own interest should not dominate its decisions / actions was squandered. The lack of a clear coherent voice at the international level impedes the coordination that is required for all to survive.
Fearing some fantasy of hegemonistic control by an alien other all carry on as per. Complex systems are strong but fragile, collapse may come catastrophically (cf Thom).
We need the G8 as we need a shot in the head. Their policies are directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions. How do people in the so called 'developed countries' still manage to believe themselves to be nicey niceyl, I'll never know !
This meeting's only purpose is to lie and desinform the people of the world so that the usa and its partners can continue to explore, steal and opress for another year.
This is just a rough estimate but I think that for every citizen of the usa ( I call them users) that lives, 50 people in the developing countries will have to die, as a matter of economics and politics.
It is hard to see what good the G8, other than furthering the already entrenched and established privilege and power relationships adn imbalances, can really do. However, if they are going to meet then we need to engage with process and at least try and influence the agenda - it's part of having something to which to hold them to account should the day ever come that we are able to enforce anything. But like the UN and all these other insitutions there is no enforceability or accountability.
But the other point that is missing in the g8 is there is rarely, indeed one might say never, any gendered analysis of the differential impacts of policies and decisions on women (50% at least of the world's population and differentially affected by all sorts of issues such as climate change, refugee flows, food, fuel, economics). We need to be ensuring that decision makers are making informed and relevant decisions fully seized of how it will affect different people differently - not necessarily more or worse or less but just differently and needing a different strategy.
The world needs for the G8 to be disbanded. The problems we face will never be solved at an international level where there are no checks and balances on corruption.
Our problems will not be solved by those whose only interest it is to extend their own power and benefit the corporations which bankroll them.
Our problems can only be solved at a local level. From the bottom up people can unite across the world for THEIR own interests.
The wealthy are opposed to us, the powerful are opposed to us, the special interests are opposed to us. As much damage as they inflict on us, they do more harm to those struggling in the developing and third world.
The people are the enemy of political and corporate elites and their propaganda mongerers.
We need local democracy, where nobody can inflict their minority ideology, political sellouts and corporate scams on us from thousands of miles away or indeed in our own town.
Only when communities have the power to forge their own destinies can we even begin to address the real issues.
Until then we are doomed to be sold out by our kleptomanic, corporatist, imperialist politicans through their media mouthpieces and spokesmodels advertising their latest humanatarian/security excuse for a land/resource grab, more funding for their billionaire friends latest 'business' scam or extra financial support for their dictator friends in third world countries who are stealing from, murdering and enslaving their people with my tax money.
'Internationalism' is a fashionable political ideal today (not amongst ordinary people anywhere), in reality it is a different word for imperialism. This global fight among the 'superpowers' and wannabe contenders are the greatest threat to the world today.
Nuclear war will vapourise us all before global warming does any harm. Everything the powers that be are doing are bringing us closer to that potential reality.
As Albert Einstein said, the fourth world war will be fought with sticks and stones and he was right. We are already in the foetal stages of a third world war which could likely explode at any moment. Yet nobody seems to notice or care.
What should disturb everybody, what should be reported on the front page of every newspaper are the warnings from certain American politicians.
I was listening to a radio interview with American congressman Ron Paul (a republican) the other day and he said two very important things:
1 That his collegues were discussing WHEN, not if, WHEN they were going to bomb Iran. They are wondering whether it would be better to do so before or after the American election!
2 Many of his collegues were saying "if only we could nuke Iran". (!!!)
Bush is looking for an excuse, an attack on Iran could push up oil prices to over 400 dollars a barrel, the ripples of such an act would be devastating. (Remember, he and most of his cabinet have interests in the oil industry)
US journalist, Seymour Hersh (google him) has recently revealed that the US is supporting covert terrorist activities in Iran in an attempt to incite them to do something that would give them a reason to bomb.
The problem is that if you centralise power at such a high level, so far away from the people things like this are possible.
If you have no respect for your own borders, you will actively disrespect other peoples.
If you have all the power at the top, those funding the interests at the top will be writing the policies.
The G8 represents industries whose interests are in direct conflict with that of us and our fellow world citizens.
We need the G8 as we need a shot in the head. Their policies are directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions. How do people in the so called 'developed countries' still manage to believe themselves to be nicey niceyl, I'll never know !
This meeting's only purpose is to lie and desinform the people of the world so that the usa and its partners can continue to explore, steal and opress for another year.
This is just a rough estimate but I think that for every citizen of the usa ( I call them users) that lives, 50 people in the developing countries will have to die, as a matter of economics and politics.