Who rules the G8? Right, end of photo op, let's go boys...
The experience of the war in Iraq suggests that international
law and multinational agreements are declining as forces of order.
Might now makes right, and any nation strong enough can invade
another on the thinnest excuse of "preventive war," without fear of
even having to evidence its case post-facto.
The US challenge to Europe's moratorium on GMO food further
suggests that health and environmental concerns, and indeed the
will of consumers, are now going to take a back seat to trade.
Where corporate profits are threatened by rules governing our
health and our planet's future, corporate profits are currently
favoured to win.
A true axis of evil is on trial this week in Evian: the
monopolisation of global decision-making by the forces of money and
power.
The actions from G8 leaders will send a strong signal as to
whether we are moving towards a more equitable world, or one which
will see increasing instability and insecurity. We don't just mean,
militarily, but also in terms of food, water, energy, and access to
basic educational and health services.
As an example, President Bush has just announced that the US
will provide US $5 billion for a five year plan to combat AIDS, but
the latest bill passed by the US Senate suggesting that medicine to
treat AIDS could be denied from African nations if they refuse
genetically engineered (GE) food aid. This is an extreme example of
the US readiness to use all possible means to defend corporate
interests. Even if the US bill provision is not legally binding it
demonstrates that the US is willing to defend the narrow interests
of Monsanto and the GE industry at all cost, including threats to
withhold lifesaving aid.
Who are these people?
The G8 (Group of 8) are eight of the leaders of the most
economically and politically powerful countries: George Bush of the
United States, Jean Chrétien of Canada, Tony Blair of Britain,
Gerhard Schröder of Germany, Junichiro Koizumi of Japan, Silvio
Berlusconi Italy, Jacques Chirac of France and Vladimir Putin of
Russia. The European Union also participates in G8 meetings.
Collectively, the G8 controls 65 percent of the world's wealth, but
only 14 percent of the world's population.
The group has met annually since 1975, when the world's six
largest economies gathered in France to discuss the economic crisis
created by US abandonment of the gold standard.
Today the G8 is one of the most powerful bodies in the world.
While the organisation claims to be an informal discussion forum,
the G8 largely sets the agenda for all of the major international
institutions including the World Trade Organization, the World Bank
and the International Monetary Fund.
Nothing happens on the international stage without direction
from the G8. From debt relief to nuclear proliferation, from global
forestry policy to global action on climate change, the G8 is
involved. However, it is not social and environmental well-being
that motivates the G8. Time and time again, the G8 has clearly
demonstrated that its primary commitment is to create a global
environment in which corporations can easily pursue profits free
from obstacles such as environmental regulations, labour standards
and taxes.
The record of the G8
I ) On the environment
While the G8 claims that the environment and sustainable
development are important issues, the organization consistently
fails to put its money where its mouth is.
Consider the G8's position on climate change. The G8 recognizes
that climate change is a global problem. The body has even
recognized that renewable energy has important potential in
addressing this global crisis and went so far as to appoint a Task
Force to study renewable energy. However, when the Task Force
recommended that the G8 take real action leading to a significant
uptake of renewables in both the North and the South, the G8
shelved the report.
From illegal logging to protection of endangered species, the G8
often says it is concerned, but rarely acts on its concern by
committing real resources and establishing real timelines to combat
the problems. Where the interests of big corporations are at odds
with the environment, the environment always loses out.
ii) On trade
The G8 advocates, "open trade and investment drive global growth
and poverty reduction." Based on this belief, the G8 has expressed
its determination: "we must renew our unwavering commitment to
structural change--including greater competition and more adaptable
labour markets" (Okinawa Summit Communiqué).
Over and over again, the G8 insists that the free market is the
key to social and environmental well-being throughout the world.
Whether it's energy security, poverty eradication, combating
climate change or fighting HIV/AIDS, the G8 advocates that
competitive markets and liberalized trade are pivotal to solving
these crises. However, the promises of neoliberal globalisation
have failed to pan out.
On the contrary, we have seen the gap between the rich and the
poor grow. Where energy and water have been privatised, these basic
goods have become unreliable and inaccessible to low income people.
Where caring for the environment has been left unregulated,
pollution has increased and environmental disasters have grown. And
where health or environment regulations, or consumer concerns, come
into conflict with the concept of unrestricted "Free Trade," the G8
has nearly always sided with the multinational corporations that
stand to profit, rather than the cautionary path that would defend
our planet and our future. The US attempt to force unwanted GMOs on
Europe is only the latest example of world leadership coming
directly from the corporate board room, in this case
Monsanto's.
To be sure, there already are some very important global rules
which, if followed, could go a long way to ensuring that human and
environmental well-being are put before corporate profit. Such
global rules include environmental agreements such as the
Convention on Biological Diversity and Convention on Persistent
Organic Pollutants and human rights agreements such as the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
However, despite calls from citizens around the world, the G8
has failed to take any action that would make trade rules
subservient to environmental and human rights agreements. On the
contrary, the US is pushing the World Trade Organization to make
exactly the opposite prioritisation in the case of GMOs. It's time
for the G8 to listen to citizens instead of big corporations.
iii) On debt
At the 1999 Summit in Cologne, US $100 billion of debt
cancellation was offered. However, as of last year, only US $2.6
billion has been cancelled. Given the devastating impacts of
poverty world-wide, it's hard to see what the G8 is waiting
for.
The G8 supports the World Bank's Heavily Indebted Poor Countries
Initiative (HIPC). The HIPC has come under sharp criticism because
it offers inadequate amounts of cancellation to only a handful of
the countries requiring debt relief. The Jubilee movement in the
South argues that full debt relief should be provided to all of
those countries who need it. If such a debt cancellation policy was
adopted, most impoverished countries would have all of their
so-called debt forgiven.
Greenpeace has consistently called for a more equitable approach
to development. The 'development' policies of the last 50 years
have led to a growing gap between rich and poor, both between and
within nations. A development policy which serves to enrich
Northern corporations and a few elites in both North and South is
not acceptable.
Will major world governments be intimidated by the strong-arm
tactics of the US? This not only applies to questions of war and
peace, but also attempts by the US to impose the will of their
corporations on the rest of the world.
Which way will the G8 head? We, and the world, will be
watching.