Elite talking shops like the G8 and G20 have no place in a world beset by grave and pressing problems, writes Curtis Doebbler* Last week Canada hosted the G8 and G20 meetings with the avowed intention of showing leadership in solving the world's problems. The elites of the G8 claimed to have "demonstrated the capacity to design credible approaches to meet the challenges of our times" in their final declaration. The result, however, appears unconvincing; nice words, ambiguous intentions and a rehash of prior commitments to action are inadequate in addressing most of the global problems they identified. The G8 consists of France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, and Russia. The European Union is a member with limited standing. In addition to the eight governments and the EU, the G20 adds to the above Australia, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, India, South Africa, Turkey, China, Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, and South Korea. Senior International Monetary Fund and World Bank officials also regularly attend G20 meetings. While powerful because these elites represent much of the world's wealth -- and with China and India participating even much of the population of the planet -- these elites are small minority of the approximately 200 states in the international community. In comparison the UN General Assembly boasts 192 member states. By positioning themselves as elites who know what is right for everyone, even former colonies that only emerged from the yoke of slavery in the past century, such as India, South Africa and Indonesia, they invoke the impression that they are superior to the other 172 UN states. Indeed, the Canadian hosts, despite having been a British colony, reinforced an impression of repression by relying on heavy-handed security methods that were reminiscent of the manner with which colonial powers dealt with indigenous populations striving for self- determination. The costs of the military-like security arrangements were estimated at $1 billion. The heavily armoured -- and often armed -- police arrested or detained dozens of demonstrators. In addition, journalists with alternative media and from non-commercial media were segregated to a distant media centre without access to the main conference venues. Meanwhile, the main meetings sent a message largely of disagreement and almost disarray amongst the self-proclaimed elites. The top item on the agenda of both meetings was what to do about the economic and financial crisis. Europeans pushed for higher taxes and less spending, while the United States wanted to increase the stimulus to Wall Street. Both scenarios relied on providing basic social protections for the most vulnerable, but neither included making such protections a priority. European labour unrest in France and Germany seem to indicate that the Europeans are cutting back on social protections. The G20 final communiqué focused on ensuring economic growth and appeared to identify this as a policy, rather than an economic result as it is usually characterised. As a result, the G20 seemed to be trying to put a spin on the economic and financial turmoil that states that the end is in sight, rather than agreeing on policies that might get us there. Characteristic of this odd optimism was host, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper's statement that "Advanced economies have committed to fiscal plans that will at least halve deficits by 2013 and stabilise or reduce government debt-to-GDP ratios by 2016," which expresses the leaders aspirations as facts. While the G20 final communiqué was confined to economic concerns, the G8 was engaged in an attempt to justify it own existence. The G8 final communiqué addresses development, Africa, environmental concerns, economic issues, international peace and security, and a number of specific country situations, including the question of Palestine. Like the G20 communiqué, it reflects more "hope" than "reality" in its attempts to deal with this broad range of issues. At the forefront of its efforts to "put on a happy face" were the Canadian government's pledges on maternal and child health. Canada pledged $1.1 billion over five years for improving maternal and child health around the world, drawing attention to the fact that it was already spending $2.75 billion over this same period. But Canada's call for other countries and the private sector to invest in this effort to achieve UN Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) 4 and 5 -- reducing infant and maternal mortality respectively -- was only partially successful. The private Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation did respond with pledge of $1.5 billion that even surpassed the Canadian offer, but questions about how this money would be spend remained unanswered. Observers like Oxfam and the Partnership for Maternal, Newborn and Child Health -- the latter which brings together about three hundred governments, academics, foundations and other non-governmental organisations -- noted that the total investment of between $5 billion and $8 billion (paragraph 11 hopes for $10 billion) fell far short of the estimated $30 billion that is urgently needed to achieve MDGs 4 and 5 by the target date of 2015. For the first time an initiative like this was prioritised in the communiqué up front in paragraphs 7 through 18 of the 43-paragraph communiqué, and reiterated in one of its two annexes. This might indicate a greater willingness of G8 countries to honour past promises of funding, unlike the Gleneagles promises of enhancing development assistance that have gone large unfulfilled. The G8 attention for Africa in the communiqué begins by focusing on the New Partnership for African Development (NEPAD). This institution is has been the darling of Western donors since it was largely imposed on the African Union as a condition of support for strengthening Africa Union mechanisms about a decade ago by Western donors. Little of substance is included and the mention of support is merely reaffirmed and no pledges of additional resources made. Equally troubling is the similar attention paid to environmental matters, which starts by acknowledging the need for action on climate change but offers only pledges that are far from adequate for having even an outside chance, much less than a good chance, of protecting the most vulnerable people in the world from the most adverse effects of climate change. The communiqué's commitment to limiting global warming to only two degrees Celsius, instead of one degree Celsius; the failure to commit to more than 50 per cent greenhouse gas emission reductions by 2050, and the failure to commit to even minimal funding will likely be a death sentence for hundreds of millions of mainly Africans over the next century. Such coarse hypocrisy in relation to African lives is hard to understand. Trade and investment are mentioned in only a single paragraph (Paragraph 26) that reiterates the prominence of the World Trade Organisation and the need for all countries to open their markets to exploitation by G8 countries. International peace and security are discussed in paragraphs 27 to 36, which emphasise the need to address nuclear proliferation. Surprisingly, however, only a very weak commitment is made to implementing the Outcome Document of the recently concluded Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference. There is also little attention for nuclear issues related to Iran or North Korea, but instead merely praise for US-Russian initiatives. This indicates a striking lack of consensus within the G8 about how to deal with nuclear proliferation. Specific situations concerning North Korea, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Myanmar, Kyrgyzstan, Sudan, Haiti, Yemen, Somalia, Palestine and Israel are mentioned. The remarks on North Korea "deplore" the alleged North Korean attack on a South Korean naval vessel on 26 March 2010 that caused a tragic loss of life. In contrast, the loss of life from Israel's attack on a civilian vessel delivering humanitarian aid to Gaza on 31 May 2010 is merely "deeply regret[ted]" as if it was an act of nature and not man. The other country statements largely underline support for common Western policies, but without providing any impetus to their implementation. The impression is given that they are merely being mentioned to show that G8 leaders are aware of these situations but have no common strategy for resolving them or even dealing with them. Indicative of this is Paragraph 42 which lumps "Yemen, Somalia, and across the Sahel" together as areas of concern. The result of the very unremarkable G8 and G20 communiqués is that it appears at best as if the richest and most powerful countries in the world don't have a good idea of how they might resolve some of the world's most pressing problems. Perhaps even more harrowing, they don't really seem to care. At the same time, the UN General Assembly seems equally unengaged. At a meeting with the international press following his election, the incoming General Assembly president from Switzerland, the most senior UN official and the representative of the UN's plenary body, recently told journalists that the Security Council and not the General Assembly deals with political issues. Until and unless states and state representatives feel the responsibility to engage in resolving the most pressing problems in the world, and not merely indicating they know what they are, the authority of bodies like the G8, the G20 and the General Assembly will continue to wane. The latter does have one advantage. As a plenary gathering of states it already has a clear mandate to deal with the world's most pressing problems. Moreover, many of these problems are already on its agenda and have been for years. What is needed is for diplomats to muster the courage and conviction to take action. What is also needed is serious reform of the United Nations to give the overwhelming majority of countries the ability to act with teeth -- i.e. resources and power. Elite bodies such as the UN Security Council are outdated and no longer constitute adequate forums for action. The G8 and G20 even less so. Indeed, the G8 and G20 summits seem less able to contribute to this effort with each meeting they hold. Maybe it is time to end this charade and focus on the one world body, which with adequate reform might be able to take on its global responsibility. * The writer is professor of law at An-Najah National University in Nablus, Palestine.
