The best the Washington gathering of G-20 countries could do is kick-start a reform process which involves many more countries, said The Guardian in an editorial yesterday. Excerpts:
Two months ago today the American bank Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy protection, and the world changed. The financial crisis went nuclear, governments were forced to step in, and an entire economic model that had resisted challenge for 30 years was suddenly up for question. But if this really is “the end of the age of greed”, as American TV termed it, it is unclear what comes next. The same old system with a few more speed bumps, or something radically different?
Which is where today’s crisis talks among world leaders come in. Just what kind of order will emerge out of this chaos, how fair or inclusive it may be, is likely to be glimpsed at this Washington gathering of G-20 countries. It has already come in for fierce criticism of two kinds: The process itself and its likely content. Some argue that nothing meaningful can come out of an overnight conference — and they are right. This will not be a re-enactment of the three-week summit that took place in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, in 1944. That drew upon intellects such as John Maynard Keynes. Crucially, power has shifted too, from West to East. The postwar settlement was devised by London and Washington, and other countries’ support was bought by US dollars. Now, it is the Anglo-American model that looks exhausted and the US is a massive borrower. Beijing and Tokyo have the surplus cash, and they do not agree at all on what the world of 2050 should look like.
So this weekend will not provide any answers; but we can hope that it asks the right questions. The best it could do is kick-start a reform process which involves many more countries. The G-20 is an improvement on the G-7 club of industrialised nations, but it cannot be right that Johannesburg is the sole representative of Africa at this meeting, or for Central America to be entirely excluded.
