Many rushed to characterize the summit as historic, although it was actually just the usual phrases about the urgent need for better regulation, greater cooperation, and additional efforts, a text that contains most official statements from such events.
Written by: Vanja Figenwald
[email protected]
Much ado about nothing, Shakespeare would say, and he would be perfectly right if he happened to be writing a report on the G-20 summit held in Washington last week. The gathering of world leaders, somewhat half-heartedly organized by outgoing U.S. President George Bush, more as a favor to his agile colleague Nicolas Sarkozy, not only failed to result in anything revolutionary but proved to be a completely unnecessary waste of taxpayers’ money and space on camera memory cards.
Although the summit was preceded by a lower-level meeting of finance ministers, this happening did not lead to anything that could be considered concrete, but rather sounded like one of the countless empty declarations and resolutions of the United Nations. However, as news reports say, the most developed countries in the world and those few important ones that are rapidly becoming so agreed that they would agree, once for sure. The meeting was, by the way, held to jointly confront the relevant economies of the world with the global recession and its accompanying unpleasant effects.
In short, it was said that an early warning system would be established, modeled after fire protection, but it is unclear what early warning means, what it will actually look like, or who will warn whom early. And what is early at all in the context of financial turbulence? This was supplemented by a demand for stricter accounting rules, again quite general and unclear, and the statements informed the global public that world leaders would very likely try to make the financial system more responsible and transparent to investors when they once again emerge into the light of day. Furthermore, they will try to reach an agreement in the Doha round of world trade negotiations, will not raise additional barriers to investments and trade during the next year, and the bill for 100 billion dollars for the faltering IMF, which may soon need fresh funds for lending, was ceremoniously handed over to the Japanese.
Differences between Europeans and Americans
Of course, during the summit, it was perfectly clear that there is a significant difference in views between Europeans and Americans, as the former were quite frightened after recent events, while the latter merely cheerfully paid 700 billion dollars to their frantic bankers and cowboyishly dismissed any need for stronger regulation. Thus, the universal remedy in such situations was applied – the announcement of an agreement in the spring of next year, probably with the notion that the morning is wiser than the evening, or translated into concrete situations, that the whole thing will cool down a bit by then, so any eventual compromises and lukewarm decisions will be mostly irrelevant anyway. If things go well, they will still be able to say that it was their merit.
Many rushed to characterize the summit as historic, although it was actually just a completely ordinary, template media painting and the usual phrases about the urgent need for better regulation, greater cooperation, and additional efforts, a text that contains most official statements from such events. Bush did not miss mentioning that the states have so far reacted well to the crisis, patting himself on the back with the statement that the U.S. could have fared worse if it weren’t for his brave administration. The incoming president, on the other hand, did not personally appear, thus avoiding an awkward situation in which he would participate but not decide, but sent his envoys – Madeleine Albright and Jim Leach. The absence of the future president was not as insignificant as it may seem, considering that he will largely influence the future of the global economy and financial system.
Were the guests just extras?
Barack Obama has already suggested his view on economic affairs with some moves, a view that may be somewhat closer to current European trends. Namely, as things stand now, the Obama administration will push for state aid to the battered American auto industry, which is protectionism through the back door, unanimously rejected at this summit and means further use of state interventionism. Such a move will undoubtedly have significant repercussions on the overall economy, both globally and in America. If America can simply loosen the purse strings and unload the necessary cash to save an industry, then anyone else can do the same depending on their needs. As far as the American economy is concerned, this means further sinking into the quagmire of intervention, which will in that case be rightly demanded by other industries affected by the crisis. And there will certainly be more of those. The model that is already starting to smell unpleasantly of socialism to Americans, which has already saved them once, will be joined by a newer new deal, a package of large infrastructure projects worth 300 billion dollars aimed at restarting the American economy. Not to mention the announced pressure on wicked bankers not to evict people from their homes.
The fact that they left the precise elaboration of measures for a new, spring meeting somehow illustrates the extent of the meeting, whose only bright spot was the guest list, which included representatives of countries that have so far regularly been sidelined when it came to important decisions, such as India, Brazil, China, Argentina, South Korea, and other developing countries, responsible for a mere trifling 90 percent of the world’s GDP. There are, however, those who have attributed key importance to this fact, believing that this is precisely the historic moment when the world begins to come together and work together for a better future. Difficult, almost impossible, as has been seen from the degree of unity achieved so far. As for history, this gathering may be recorded as a supreme contradicto in adjecto, considering that about twenty leaders met to develop a common tactic, only to ultimately decide that it is best to leave concrete measures to individual states.
