Font size: 
The G8 leaders share much in common in addition to their appreciation of fine cuisine. They share nearly 62 percent of global economic output and an equally high pollution rate, with the United States topping the list.
They were gathered in the resort town of Toyako for an annual summit, to untie some knotty issues including global poverty aggravated by soaring food prices and shortages made worse by oil prices hovering in the stratosphere.
One may ask, in 2008 – with changes sweeping the world, old ways giving way to new and some of the certainties of the past turned on their heads – can a group of just eight nations pontificate and opine on the future course that the larger, less privileged world should take?
The Economist was spot on in its view that while the earlier G5 of 1975 had anti-communism as its driving force, today’s G8 is a fissured lot. The United States, Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, Canada and Russia lack the wherewithal to impact governance in volatile Africa and are clueless – since they are powerless – about affecting checks and balances to parry food, oil and commodity prices. Their lack of control over their own economies creates stumbling blocks for their vision of managing climate change.
Gordon Brown may have reminded the G8 leaders of their earlier pledge during the Gleneagles summit of 2005 to double international aid to Africa by 2010 and was happy that some of it was on track, but U.S. aid to Africa over the last 40 years just matched spending during the first nine months of the Iraq war.
Again, doubling of aid to Africa is always freighted with the possibility of not reaching those it is intended for.
Pressing the United Nations for fresh sanctions against the incorrigible despot Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe cannot rule out the role of the African National Union, which should instead be goaded to take on the mantle of softening him up by creating enough pressure from within Africa.
Improvements in the lives of Africans have come about not because of bold aid initiatives at these international forums, but because of small domestic reforms.
As for climate change, the G8 leaders faced pressure aplenty from environmentalists and green groups who were not particularly pleased even when the rich nations committed to halving carbon emissions by 2050. With the present threat of global warming rising, they wanted emissions reduced by 80-95 percent within the same time frame, with 1990 as the base year from which to count the scaling down of emissions. This put them at loggerheads with Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fakuda who wanted the present year as a baseline.
But is it possible for new economies – China India, Mexico, South Africa and Brazil – to sacrifice growth to reduce emissions? Not likely, as they pointed out on the sidelines of the summit. The five countries balked at numerical targets and in their face-off with the richest nations put climate change behind settling disputes over soaring food and oil prices.
These nations figure they will be better off dealing with the next U.S. administration in the fight against rising temperatures that cause floods and crop failures.
These economies from different continents have equally different perspectives. They also are received with goodwill – which should not be misunderstood as leverage emanating from pomposity – in regions where the cloistered G8 has little or no leverage, such as Africa.
Why are they not on board then? Why are the United States and Japan opposed to broadening the G8 as suggested by French President Nicolas Sarkozy?
Did White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe believe the G8 had eight pairs of eyes when he dismissed suggestions of a format change? Emerging economies must be taken into account on an even keel if a just viewpoint is to be reached.
Or, have expectations risen considerably over the years with special interest groups weighing in to make a mockery of the summit? Does it require so much fanfare for the leaders as they party from one capital to another every year to get to know each other, the reason for which the summits were convened in the first place?
Great work can be accomplished quietly without the circus-like environment that has of late become the hallmark of G8 summits.
--
(Susenjit Guha is a freelance writer living in Kolkata, India. He can be contacted at sguha60@yahoo.com. ©Copyright Susenjit Guha.)
