Last weekend’s G-8 summit in Genoa was far from a failure as far as new policies go. There were a lot of good decisions, notably on fighting global poverty: a global fund was set up to fight AIDS, there is to be a program providing developing countries with information technology, and a partnership plan has been set to channel investment from the G-8 states into Africa. There was also agreement that international observers should be sent to the Middle East to oversee implementation of the Mitchell report and an announcement of fresh arms negotiations between Russia and the US linked to President Bush’s controversial plans for a nuclear defense shield. All very creditable.
Nonetheless, Genoa was a fiasco. Originally, the idea behind holding summits was that the leaders of the world’s most powerful economies should take time out to reflect on the wider responsibilities that flow from such power and think about possible changes to such policies, both for the benefit of themselves and the rest of mankind. What happened at Genoa bore little resemblance to that ideal. Hosted by an Italian prime minister out to impress, the opposite effect was achieved. The summit will be remembered only for the mass protests, violence and death of a demonstrator, and Genoa besieged.
There were far too many observers and delegates — thousands of them, not just from the G-8 countries, but from a host of observer organizations and from other countries. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan was there, so was the president of the European Union as well as the South African, Nigerian, Algerian, Malian and Senegalese presidents; the Bangladeshi president was there to represent Asia. Salvador’s on behalf of Latin America. Despite the good intentions and decisions, it looked suspiciously like the some presidents were there as supplicants, cap in hand, summoned by the world’s grand powers to hear what had been decided on their behalf.
The objection seems to be that the summits have become the forum for the world’s industrial giants to decide the fate of the rest of us. That, the protesters feel, smacks of old-fashioned imperialism. There is a forum for world decision making; it is called the UN, they argue. Of course, it is perfectly right and proper for the world’s economically powerful to talk about matters that concern themselves; it is no one else’s business to tell them not to do so. The dividing line is one of attitude. If they choose to spend some of their time discussing how to work together and pool their resources and talents to help others, that is entirely praiseworthy. If they see themselves as having a right, by virtue of their economic strength, to tell the world how to behave, then they overstep the mark.
Genoa overstepped that mark. Hopefully, next year in Canada, the lessons will have been learned — not because of threats of violence: it would be immoral to suggest that just because some self-appointed fanatics decide to throw bombs and bring proceedings to a violent halt the legitimate leaders of a group of nations should not meet. But the meetings ought to be more of a think tank — and more concerned with issues that the countries have in common. They must not act as an alternative to the UN.
