Read this article in:
3 July, 2001
When the powerful economies of the West found that it was much easier to reach decisions when only the wealthier were present, they agreed to form the G-5. "G" stands for Group, and 5 for the USA, Japan, Germany, France and Great Britain.
Later, because of pressure from Italy, the G-5 was expanded to G-7, to include both Italy and Canada. Then, to make sure that Russia, after the collapse of the Soviet system, would not escape any control, the G-7 became G-8. The decision to include Russia was not motivated by its economic strength but rather by its weakness, which represented a danger for the whole of the West.
Following the example of this gathering, other groupings have been formed, with the common denominator to defend a smaller or larger number of countries against other groups.
The G-8 has no rules. It meets and decides the agenda without any kind of democratic process or transparency.
Undoubtedly, when political leaders meet to discuss matters that concern everybody it is a good thing. Both bilateral and multilateral contacts are necessary to create and maintain a balance in the world and its different regions. Such contacts, however, can only be fruitful and apply to everybody if they happen in a global context.
If decisions are made over the heads of the people concerned, they will never be accepted, even if they are good ones. The riots in Gothenburg, Prague, Davos, Nice, Washington, Seattle and Sydney etc. are a clear signal of this.
International institutions for world governance are too weak today and should be strengthened. Reforms to make them transparent and to incorporate an effective social dimension in their rules are badly needed. It is well within their scope to give the answers to the many questions which the so-called "people of Seattle" - but also others - are asking, and they must be given the necessary tools to do it.
By institutionalising self-nominated powerful groups like the G-8, the work of internationally-recognised agencies such as the UN, ILO, UNCTAD, UNDEP, FAO etc. will be further undermined.
Officially, the G-8 does not make any decisions, but there is no doubt about the effect their discussions have on the global economy. One should not forget that the countries of the G-8 together control the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.
Why not have the G-8 within the framework of the United Nations and under the chairmanship of its General Secretary?
Later, because of pressure from Italy, the G-5 was expanded to G-7, to include both Italy and Canada. Then, to make sure that Russia, after the collapse of the Soviet system, would not escape any control, the G-7 became G-8. The decision to include Russia was not motivated by its economic strength but rather by its weakness, which represented a danger for the whole of the West.
Following the example of this gathering, other groupings have been formed, with the common denominator to defend a smaller or larger number of countries against other groups.
The G-8 has no rules. It meets and decides the agenda without any kind of democratic process or transparency.
Undoubtedly, when political leaders meet to discuss matters that concern everybody it is a good thing. Both bilateral and multilateral contacts are necessary to create and maintain a balance in the world and its different regions. Such contacts, however, can only be fruitful and apply to everybody if they happen in a global context.
If decisions are made over the heads of the people concerned, they will never be accepted, even if they are good ones. The riots in Gothenburg, Prague, Davos, Nice, Washington, Seattle and Sydney etc. are a clear signal of this.
International institutions for world governance are too weak today and should be strengthened. Reforms to make them transparent and to incorporate an effective social dimension in their rules are badly needed. It is well within their scope to give the answers to the many questions which the so-called "people of Seattle" - but also others - are asking, and they must be given the necessary tools to do it.
By institutionalising self-nominated powerful groups like the G-8, the work of internationally-recognised agencies such as the UN, ILO, UNCTAD, UNDEP, FAO etc. will be further undermined.
Officially, the G-8 does not make any decisions, but there is no doubt about the effect their discussions have on the global economy. One should not forget that the countries of the G-8 together control the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.
Why not have the G-8 within the framework of the United Nations and under the chairmanship of its General Secretary?