The G-20 meets in November in Cannes this year. Heads up, People.
You know what the G-20 don't discuss?
Arms. Weapons of destruction, mass or otherwise. Mass means People, right?
The vast, enormously profitable arms sales from which military contractor elites in the Pentagon, the defence establishments in India and Pak and China, and every one of the G-20, make huge covert profits.
Manmohan will not be bringing up India's arms purchases either. He and India are part of that cynical, fairly covert, G-20 maneuver.
Why covert? Because G-20 has no charter and it's meetings are mainly closed-door. A great moment for democracy. You and I wont know what went down among the great ones. Happy with that Aam Log?
Arms profiteers don't have to actually exchange cash under the table to make a profit, right?
The US has been a war machine and economy since World War II. So are the UK, France.
India's economy as a post-colonial democracy will ultimately end up in the same sorry boom-and-bust so-called 'free market" imbroglio, if India, the world's largest economy, plays the same US game of a hidden arms-driven budget agenda, instead of a human development, social justice agenda.
India should chart a different course away from arms dependency on the G-3 and instead foster social justice collaboration with the Global South~South economies, example Brazil, Ghana, South Africa. That post-colonial option has the potential of India further developing the Gandhian pragmatic ideal, The Peoples' Ideal, of Ethical Democracy, now largely missing in corruption-ridden India.
Dr. Chithra KarunaKaran
City University of New York [CUNY]
Ethical Democracy As Lived Practice
http://EthicalDemocracy.blogspot.com
-----------------------
G-20
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-20_major_economies
--------------------------------------------------------
BBC copyright
14 April 2011 Last updated at 09:18 ET
London G20 demo: Met Police 'kettling' not justified
Bishopsgate Climate Camp Demonstrators at the climate camp were kept in a tight police cordon for more than four hours
Continue reading the main story
Related Stories
G20 policing tactics questioned
Met complaints rise over average
Warning over policing of protests
Two activists have won their case against policing of the G20 protests, as the High Court ruled police containment was "not justified".
The judges upheld Hannah McClure and Josh Moos's case that police used "violence" to control the Camp for Climate Action in London in April 2009.
There was "no reasonable" justification for "kettling" but police did not unlawfully try to clear the camp.
The Metropolitan Police said it would appeal against the court's judgement.
In response to this, Frances Wright, from the climate camp's legal team, said: "It is outrageous that public money is continuing to be used to defend the kettling of the climate camp for five hours.
"The police lost the argument in the media and public confidence dropped, two parliamentary committees were critical and now the court has agreed."
John Halford, counsel for the demonstrators, said: "The court has roundly condemned the unlawful and oppressive police response, exposing it as unacceptable in a democratic society."
The Met's decision to push protesters at the Bishopsgate camp was "not necessary or proportionate", the judges decided.
Three activists at the camp had challenged the legality of police using riot shields to land blows on protesters at the G20 demonstrations, known as "shield strikes".
Chris Abbott's case was dropped because he could not get legal aid, his lawyers said.
Sir Anthony May, the president of the Queen's Bench Division, and Mr Justice Sweeney rejected the complaint that the Met decided unlawfully to clear the climate camp before it was due to end.
Met officers "kettled" demonstrators for more than four hours on 1 April, the same day newspaper vendor Ian Tomlinson died after being pushed down by a police officer in Royal Exchange.
Ruling in the case, the judges said: "There was at 7.07pm no reasonably apprehended breach of the peace, imminent or otherwise, within the Climate Camp itself sufficient to justify containment."
Metropolitan police officers on duty in the City of London during clashes between police and protesters at the time of the G20 summit The case challenged the use of riot shields to strike protesters
But the court heard that later in the evening there was a risk and police reaction was appropriate.
There had already been incidents at the Bishopsgate camp where bottles and coins and other items were thrown at the police lines, but the protest had been largely peaceful, the court heard.
"When the Royal Exchange protesters were dispersing from 7.25pm there was clearly a risk that some of them might head for the Climate Camp and the police were right to anticipate the risk and take appropriate steps to deal with it, if it materialised," the judges said.
They said the Met's decision to push protesters 15-person deep was not needed.
"We think that the police were right to have an eye to infiltration from Great St Helens Street and the street or alleyway opposite, but we are not persuaded that the pushing operation of a 15-person deep crowd to move them approximately 20-30m to the north and beyond these side roads was reasonably necessary.
"It follows that, in our judgement, the pushing operation from the south was not necessary or proportionate."
'Prevented violence'
On the use of shields the judges ruled: "The policy and training about the use of shields as it came over to us in the evidence appeared to be insufficient for individual circumstances.
"There needed to be clear-cut instructions as to whether shield strikes were ever justified, and, if so, when."
The judges said the Met had a duty to clear the road, "by force if necessary", but added: "If there were individual occasions when the force used may have been excessive, that is a matter for individual complaint, not for these judicial review proceedings."
A Met statement said the judgement recognised police concerns about the possibility of a breach of peace at the camp and officers believed "the Bishopsgate containment prevented further scenes of violence and criminal damage occurring on 1 April 2009".
The force said: "We have rigorously defended the claims against the MPS because at the heart of this case lies a vital public order policing tactic that prevents disorder and protects the public.
"It should be noted that the judgement relates to the individual circumstances of 1 April 2009 and not the use of containment at other events.
"Where necessary we will continue to use containment as a last resort to prevent serious disorder and violence.
"We will be appealing the Administrative Court's finding that the containment and pushing operations on the 1 April 2009 in Bishopsgate were not lawful."
More on This Story
Related Stories
G20 policing tactics questioned 14 APRIL 2011, LONDON
Met complaints rise over average 24 FEBRUARY 2011, LONDON
Warning over policing of protests 09 FEBRUARY 2011, UK
Met boss 'sorry' over false claim 25 JANUARY 2011, LONDON
'Covert Met officers at G20 demo' 19 JANUARY 2011, LONDON
Police 'kettle' tactic feels the heat 09 DECEMBER 2010, UK
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Showing posts with label G-20. Show all posts
Showing posts with label G-20. Show all posts
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Saturday, September 26, 2009
G-20 Showcases Priorities of Previously Oppressed Economies [POE]
G-20 Showcases Priorities of Previously Oppressed Economies (POE)
The US and Europe still consider themselves to be the center of the universe.
Sorry the G-20 is not your uncle's G-8!
There is an emerging World Economic Order dynamic that is NOT made up exclusively of the former colonial powers, and neo-imperial states like the US continue to destabilize the emerging world order.
This Times article focuses on what the US and Europe's leaders say. Is that important? Not so much.
It is China, India, Brazil and others who are calling the tune.
Their comments and concerns should have been more comprehensively reported. The Times should not be serving as a mouthpiece for the power who caused the economic downturn in the first place.
Your reporter's job is to provide fair and balanced reporting that presents concerns and priorities of ALL the G-20 members, not just the G-8.
Suck it up, get over it, there is a power shift, the world is multipolar and the G-20 like the G-77 are part of the global shift towards social justice. The G-8 deserves to become obsolete.
Now if we could also do away with the UNSC..... abandon all efforts to expand it, as Brazil and India regrettably want to do.
The UN General Assembly consisting of ALL member states should cast votes on regional and global security issues, not the US-Euro-led UNSC, or any expanded form of the UN IN-SECURITY COUNCIL.
Chithra KarunaKaran
Ethical Democracy As Lived Practice
http://EthicalDemocracy.blogspot.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New York Times copyright
Group of 20 Agrees on Far-Reaching Economic Plan
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
Published: September 25, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/26/world/26summit.html
=====================================================================================
The Hindu copyright
http://www.hindu.com/2009/09/26/stories/2009092661421000.htm
So is G20 the new G8? Not quite
by Siddharth Varadarajan
Pittsburgh: The White House describes it as part of the process of “creating a 21st century international economic architecture” and analysts around the world have already hailed the G20 as the worthy successor to the G8 group of leading industrial economies. But when the hype from Pittsburgh settles, one thing is clear: the absence of political coherence in the larger group of 20 means the group of eight will remain a useful platform for the United States to try and forge a common stand on key strategic issues, even if the G20 assumes the mantle of global economic stewardship that the smaller, more exclusive group can no longer credibly or effectively discharge.
“Dramatic changes in the world economy have not always been reflected in the global architecture for economic cooperation,” a White House statement released shortly after President Barack Obama hosted a banquet for G20 leaders here on Thursday night. “This all started to change today … [as] leaders endorsed the G20 as the premier forum for their international economic cooperation. This decision brings to the table the countries needed to build a stronger, more balanced global economy, reform the financial system and lift the lives of the poorest,” the statement somewhat grandiosely asserted.
At the time of going to press, the G20’s final communiqué had not yet been released, though key elements of the U.S. formulation are believed to have been incorporated. The communiqué is also likely to endorse the continuation of global stimulus measures, the need for rebalancing consumption and savings in major economies, better financial regulation, as well as tying the remuneration of international bankers to the adherence of their banks to prudential norms.
For the U.S., Europe and Japan, the G20 is a better forum to accommodate the rising aspirations of Brazil, Russia, India and China than the G8 because the majority of the larger group still consists of Western, OECD countries. A truly representative G8, on the other hand, would give the BRIC nations a collective voice roughly equal to the four largest Western economies.
The G20 brings for the U.S. an added advantage: the presence of China and India helps blunt the opposition of Europe to certain structural adjustments in the management of the world economy that America, on balance, favours, such as a change in the composition of the IMF board. Since Europe has a disproportionate presence, reducing its representation there in order to make way for the emerging economies is a low-cost way of getting the latter to support wider U.S.-led initiatives. But on political issues like nonproliferation, the G20 would never allow the U.S. the kind of latitude it enjoys at the G8, despite the presence of Russia in the smaller grouping.
How does the size of the high table matter? A senior Indian official involved in the climate change issue told The Hindu that the presence of a large Western group which already has many of its positions worked out means a country like India is always forced to go in batting on the back foot.
Traditionally, India has tended to serve as the bellwether for developing country positions on a wide range of issues. India works well with G77-plus-China and is able to leverage this wider alliance during multilateral negotiations. But in forums like the G20, the West fights back with formulations that seek to chip away at the developing country consensus. This might be harder to do in a smaller setting like a truly representative G8 or even the G8 plus Outreach-5, where India and China do not have to raise their voice in order to be heard.
A case in point is climate change, where the U.S., and to a lesser extent Europe and Japan, have simply refused to implement the prescribed norms of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change for binding emission cuts. Yet, in the run-up to the Pittsburgh summit, India and China, which have taken on voluntary mitigation targets, found themselves under pressure in the G20 to “do more.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Times of India copyright
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/world/us/International-nuclear-order-cannot-be-discriminatory-India/articleshow/5062591.cms
UNITED NATIONS: India today welcomed the renewed global push for achieving a world free of atomic weapons but underlined that the international
nuclear order cannot be "discriminatory".
"India attaches the highest priority to the goal of nuclear disarmament and has an impeccable non-proliferation record. We welcome the renewed global debate on achieving a world free of nuclear weapons," External Affairs Minister S M Krishna said while addressing the 64th session of the United Nations here.
"The international nuclear order cannot be discriminatory. Further, States must fulfil the obligations they have undertaken," he said in the backdrop of pressures on non-NPT signatories to join the pact. India is not a signatory to the NPT yet.
The United Nations Security Council resolution piloted by US President Barack Obama this week asked all non-NPT signatories to join the treaty as non-nuclear weapon states but India, which views the treaty as flawed and discriminatory, has refused to accept it.
However, Krishna said India was committed to a voluntary and unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing.
"We remained committed to a voluntary, unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing," he said, adding that India will continue to engage with key countries to garner greater international understanding to achieve nuclear disarmament.
==============================================================================
The US and Europe still consider themselves to be the center of the universe.
Sorry the G-20 is not your uncle's G-8!
There is an emerging World Economic Order dynamic that is NOT made up exclusively of the former colonial powers, and neo-imperial states like the US continue to destabilize the emerging world order.
This Times article focuses on what the US and Europe's leaders say. Is that important? Not so much.
It is China, India, Brazil and others who are calling the tune.
Their comments and concerns should have been more comprehensively reported. The Times should not be serving as a mouthpiece for the power who caused the economic downturn in the first place.
Your reporter's job is to provide fair and balanced reporting that presents concerns and priorities of ALL the G-20 members, not just the G-8.
Suck it up, get over it, there is a power shift, the world is multipolar and the G-20 like the G-77 are part of the global shift towards social justice. The G-8 deserves to become obsolete.
Now if we could also do away with the UNSC..... abandon all efforts to expand it, as Brazil and India regrettably want to do.
The UN General Assembly consisting of ALL member states should cast votes on regional and global security issues, not the US-Euro-led UNSC, or any expanded form of the UN IN-SECURITY COUNCIL.
Chithra KarunaKaran
Ethical Democracy As Lived Practice
http://EthicalDemocracy.blogspot.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New York Times copyright
Group of 20 Agrees on Far-Reaching Economic Plan
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
Published: September 25, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/26/world/26summit.html
=====================================================================================
The Hindu copyright
http://www.hindu.com/2009/09/26/stories/2009092661421000.htm
So is G20 the new G8? Not quite
by Siddharth Varadarajan
Pittsburgh: The White House describes it as part of the process of “creating a 21st century international economic architecture” and analysts around the world have already hailed the G20 as the worthy successor to the G8 group of leading industrial economies. But when the hype from Pittsburgh settles, one thing is clear: the absence of political coherence in the larger group of 20 means the group of eight will remain a useful platform for the United States to try and forge a common stand on key strategic issues, even if the G20 assumes the mantle of global economic stewardship that the smaller, more exclusive group can no longer credibly or effectively discharge.
“Dramatic changes in the world economy have not always been reflected in the global architecture for economic cooperation,” a White House statement released shortly after President Barack Obama hosted a banquet for G20 leaders here on Thursday night. “This all started to change today … [as] leaders endorsed the G20 as the premier forum for their international economic cooperation. This decision brings to the table the countries needed to build a stronger, more balanced global economy, reform the financial system and lift the lives of the poorest,” the statement somewhat grandiosely asserted.
At the time of going to press, the G20’s final communiqué had not yet been released, though key elements of the U.S. formulation are believed to have been incorporated. The communiqué is also likely to endorse the continuation of global stimulus measures, the need for rebalancing consumption and savings in major economies, better financial regulation, as well as tying the remuneration of international bankers to the adherence of their banks to prudential norms.
For the U.S., Europe and Japan, the G20 is a better forum to accommodate the rising aspirations of Brazil, Russia, India and China than the G8 because the majority of the larger group still consists of Western, OECD countries. A truly representative G8, on the other hand, would give the BRIC nations a collective voice roughly equal to the four largest Western economies.
The G20 brings for the U.S. an added advantage: the presence of China and India helps blunt the opposition of Europe to certain structural adjustments in the management of the world economy that America, on balance, favours, such as a change in the composition of the IMF board. Since Europe has a disproportionate presence, reducing its representation there in order to make way for the emerging economies is a low-cost way of getting the latter to support wider U.S.-led initiatives. But on political issues like nonproliferation, the G20 would never allow the U.S. the kind of latitude it enjoys at the G8, despite the presence of Russia in the smaller grouping.
How does the size of the high table matter? A senior Indian official involved in the climate change issue told The Hindu that the presence of a large Western group which already has many of its positions worked out means a country like India is always forced to go in batting on the back foot.
Traditionally, India has tended to serve as the bellwether for developing country positions on a wide range of issues. India works well with G77-plus-China and is able to leverage this wider alliance during multilateral negotiations. But in forums like the G20, the West fights back with formulations that seek to chip away at the developing country consensus. This might be harder to do in a smaller setting like a truly representative G8 or even the G8 plus Outreach-5, where India and China do not have to raise their voice in order to be heard.
A case in point is climate change, where the U.S., and to a lesser extent Europe and Japan, have simply refused to implement the prescribed norms of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change for binding emission cuts. Yet, in the run-up to the Pittsburgh summit, India and China, which have taken on voluntary mitigation targets, found themselves under pressure in the G20 to “do more.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Times of India copyright
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/world/us/International-nuclear-order-cannot-be-discriminatory-India/articleshow/5062591.cms
UNITED NATIONS: India today welcomed the renewed global push for achieving a world free of atomic weapons but underlined that the international
nuclear order cannot be "discriminatory".
"India attaches the highest priority to the goal of nuclear disarmament and has an impeccable non-proliferation record. We welcome the renewed global debate on achieving a world free of nuclear weapons," External Affairs Minister S M Krishna said while addressing the 64th session of the United Nations here.
"The international nuclear order cannot be discriminatory. Further, States must fulfil the obligations they have undertaken," he said in the backdrop of pressures on non-NPT signatories to join the pact. India is not a signatory to the NPT yet.
The United Nations Security Council resolution piloted by US President Barack Obama this week asked all non-NPT signatories to join the treaty as non-nuclear weapon states but India, which views the treaty as flawed and discriminatory, has refused to accept it.
However, Krishna said India was committed to a voluntary and unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing.
"We remained committed to a voluntary, unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing," he said, adding that India will continue to engage with key countries to garner greater international understanding to achieve nuclear disarmament.
==============================================================================
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Social Justice, Ethical Democracy & the G-20
My Comment #61.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/03/world/europe/03summit.html
New York Times copyright
-------------
April 02, 2009 9:28 am
Obama, the first Black U.S. president is squandering an historic opportunity by failing to focus on socio-economic JUSTICE in the world at the G-20 summit.
I didn't expect him to, (even as I voted for him), because he performs Whiteness. He is rewarded for protecting and preserving the dominant status quo. He is the Black least threatening to the status quo. I voted for him because he was the lesser of two evils, not because I expected him to make Change I could Believe in.
The US economy and US foreign policy would both benefit if the US and other member nations of the G-20 focused on the havenots (their numbers are increasing) in the US and in the world. The member-nations representing the developing economies are still exhibiting a colonized dependent mindset.
The rich countries are already heavily "protectionist" and the so-called "free" market is loaded in favor of the rich looting economies.
Regulation, growth and development in the 21st century should be DRIVEN by the pragmatic idealism of social justice.
Sharing and being fair are important lessons learned in kindergarten.
Chithra KarunaKaran
Ethical Democracy As Lived Practice
http://EthicalDemocracy.blogspot.com
------------
http://community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2009/04/03/world/europe/03summit.html?s=1&pg=3
Global Leaders Meeting to Resolve Rift on Economic Plan
By MARK LANDLER and DAVID E. SANGER
Published: April 2, 2009
New York Times copyright
Updated: March 30, 2009
-----------------------------
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/g/group_of_20/index.html
The Group of 20, or G-20, is an international body that meets to discuss economic issues. Its members -- 19 countries with some of the world's biggest industrial and emerging economies, plus the European Union -- represent about 90 percent of the world's gross national product, 80 percent of world trade (including trade within the European Union) and two-thirds of the global population. The G-20, which represents a far broader range of the world's industrialized economies than the more Atlantic-oriented G-8, has taken on a new prominence in the current economic crisis. On April 2, 2009, its members will meet in London for a session expected to center around President Obama's push for greater economic stimulus around the globe, Europe's desire for a stronger framework of financial regulation and the desire of emerging economies, led by China, for a bigger role in economic dipomacy.
The G-20 was established as a response to the Asian financial crisis of the late 1990s and to a "growing recognition that key emerging-market countries were not adequately included in the core of global economic discussion and governance," according to the G-20's public materials.
A smaller group of industrialized nations has been meeting since the 1970s (the G-7 and G-8, which convene finance ministers and heads of government, respectively). In the 1990s, given the extent of the Asian financial crisis, government leaders decided to involve a broader group of countries, including emerging market countries, to deal with the turmoil. A group of 22 countries ("G-22") and then a group of 33 countries ("G-33") met on an ad hoc basis. The G-20 was created in 1999 as a more permanent international economic body that includes representation from emerging countries. The member countries are Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Britain, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey and the United States. The European Union is also a member, represented by the rotating council presidency and the European Central Bank.
The membership of the G-20 has not changed since it was established, and the organization says there are "no formal criteria for G-20 membership." With the exceptions of Argentina, Saudi Arabia and South Africa, all of the member countries fall within the list of the top 20 biggest state G.D.P.'s in the world (using the 2007 rankings from the C.I.A. World Factbook, International Monetary Fund and the World Bank).
"I don't think it's a club you can join except by having a lot of economic growth," said Simon Johnson, a professor at the M.I.T. Sloan School of Management and a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics.
Usually, the attendees of the annual meetings are the finance ministers and central bank governors of the member countries, plus top leadership of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. In November 2008, heads of government attended an emergency G-20 session held in Washington to deal with the crumbling of global credit.
The Washington meeting was referred to by many observers as a possible prelude to a sort of Bretton Woods II, meaning an event that marks the start of a new international financial framework. (The term Bretton Woods System refers to an international monetary system set up during a 1944 conference in Bretton Woods, N.H.; it established, among other things, the I.M.F.).
The I.M.F., which had nearly become irrelevant before the current crisis, is now expected to be a focus of the London gathering. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, who once worked at the fund, has called for its financial resources to be expanded by $500 billion, effectively tripling its lending capacity to distressed countries and cementing its status as the lender of last resort for much of the world.
Japan and the European Union have each pledged $100 billion; the United States has signaled it will contribute a similar sum, though its money will take longer to arrive because of the need for Congressional approval. China, with its mammoth foreign exchange reserves, is the next obvious donor.
Yet officials of China and other developing countries have served notice that they are reluctant to make comparable pledges without getting a greater say in the operations of the fund, which is run by a Frenchman, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, and is heavily influenced by the United States and Western Europe.
New York Times copyright
=====================================================================================
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/03/world/europe/03summit.html
New York Times copyright
-------------
April 02, 2009 9:28 am
Obama, the first Black U.S. president is squandering an historic opportunity by failing to focus on socio-economic JUSTICE in the world at the G-20 summit.
I didn't expect him to, (even as I voted for him), because he performs Whiteness. He is rewarded for protecting and preserving the dominant status quo. He is the Black least threatening to the status quo. I voted for him because he was the lesser of two evils, not because I expected him to make Change I could Believe in.
The US economy and US foreign policy would both benefit if the US and other member nations of the G-20 focused on the havenots (their numbers are increasing) in the US and in the world. The member-nations representing the developing economies are still exhibiting a colonized dependent mindset.
The rich countries are already heavily "protectionist" and the so-called "free" market is loaded in favor of the rich looting economies.
Regulation, growth and development in the 21st century should be DRIVEN by the pragmatic idealism of social justice.
Sharing and being fair are important lessons learned in kindergarten.
Chithra KarunaKaran
Ethical Democracy As Lived Practice
http://EthicalDemocracy.blogspot.com
------------
http://community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2009/04/03/world/europe/03summit.html?s=1&pg=3
Global Leaders Meeting to Resolve Rift on Economic Plan
By MARK LANDLER and DAVID E. SANGER
Published: April 2, 2009
New York Times copyright
Updated: March 30, 2009
-----------------------------
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/g/group_of_20/index.html
The Group of 20, or G-20, is an international body that meets to discuss economic issues. Its members -- 19 countries with some of the world's biggest industrial and emerging economies, plus the European Union -- represent about 90 percent of the world's gross national product, 80 percent of world trade (including trade within the European Union) and two-thirds of the global population. The G-20, which represents a far broader range of the world's industrialized economies than the more Atlantic-oriented G-8, has taken on a new prominence in the current economic crisis. On April 2, 2009, its members will meet in London for a session expected to center around President Obama's push for greater economic stimulus around the globe, Europe's desire for a stronger framework of financial regulation and the desire of emerging economies, led by China, for a bigger role in economic dipomacy.
The G-20 was established as a response to the Asian financial crisis of the late 1990s and to a "growing recognition that key emerging-market countries were not adequately included in the core of global economic discussion and governance," according to the G-20's public materials.
A smaller group of industrialized nations has been meeting since the 1970s (the G-7 and G-8, which convene finance ministers and heads of government, respectively). In the 1990s, given the extent of the Asian financial crisis, government leaders decided to involve a broader group of countries, including emerging market countries, to deal with the turmoil. A group of 22 countries ("G-22") and then a group of 33 countries ("G-33") met on an ad hoc basis. The G-20 was created in 1999 as a more permanent international economic body that includes representation from emerging countries. The member countries are Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Britain, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey and the United States. The European Union is also a member, represented by the rotating council presidency and the European Central Bank.
The membership of the G-20 has not changed since it was established, and the organization says there are "no formal criteria for G-20 membership." With the exceptions of Argentina, Saudi Arabia and South Africa, all of the member countries fall within the list of the top 20 biggest state G.D.P.'s in the world (using the 2007 rankings from the C.I.A. World Factbook, International Monetary Fund and the World Bank).
"I don't think it's a club you can join except by having a lot of economic growth," said Simon Johnson, a professor at the M.I.T. Sloan School of Management and a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics.
Usually, the attendees of the annual meetings are the finance ministers and central bank governors of the member countries, plus top leadership of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. In November 2008, heads of government attended an emergency G-20 session held in Washington to deal with the crumbling of global credit.
The Washington meeting was referred to by many observers as a possible prelude to a sort of Bretton Woods II, meaning an event that marks the start of a new international financial framework. (The term Bretton Woods System refers to an international monetary system set up during a 1944 conference in Bretton Woods, N.H.; it established, among other things, the I.M.F.).
The I.M.F., which had nearly become irrelevant before the current crisis, is now expected to be a focus of the London gathering. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, who once worked at the fund, has called for its financial resources to be expanded by $500 billion, effectively tripling its lending capacity to distressed countries and cementing its status as the lender of last resort for much of the world.
Japan and the European Union have each pledged $100 billion; the United States has signaled it will contribute a similar sum, though its money will take longer to arrive because of the need for Congressional approval. China, with its mammoth foreign exchange reserves, is the next obvious donor.
Yet officials of China and other developing countries have served notice that they are reluctant to make comparable pledges without getting a greater say in the operations of the fund, which is run by a Frenchman, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, and is heavily influenced by the United States and Western Europe.
New York Times copyright
=====================================================================================
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)