“G8 + 5 + 3”, “50 by 2050”, and the Kabuki theater of world summits - Instablogs
“G8 + 5 + 3”, “50 by 2050”, and the Kabuki theater of world summits
Eugene Ivanov , Boston: Jul 14 2008
Made Popular Jul 14 2008

“G8 + 5 + 3”, “50 by 2050”, and the Kabuki theater of world summits

The annual meetings of world leaders, the so-called G8 summits, are often criticized for raising high expectations, but delivering few practical results. Adding to this negative image is the very way the summits are conducted: held in secluded locations under heavy secret service protection, with sessions closed to the media, and with the leaders of the “industrialized” countries themselves performing tightly choreographed acts of “public” appearance for news conferences and photo-ops. Alluding to this year’s location of the summit (Hokkaido, Japan), one observer called G8 summits “Kabuki diplomacy.”

Apparently mindful of their awkward image as “Olympic gods”, the G8 leaders began opening the doors to the club – a bit … At the 2007 Heiligendamm summit in Germany, German Chancellor Angela Merkel invited the leaders of five “emerging economies”: India, China, Brazil, Mexico, and South Africa, causing observes speak of a de facto “G8 + 5” format.

This year, invitations were extended to three “major trading nations”: Australia, South Korea, and Indonesia, resulting in a more complicated formula of “G8 + 5 + 3.” In fact, a total of 16 parties participated in the summit, as the European Union had sent its representative too.

“G8 + 5 + 3”, “50 by 2050”, and the Kabuki theater of world summits

Three major issues occupied the agenda of the summit: the world financial crisis, the food crisis, and energy security. Africa was also high on the agenda: the G8 has reiterated its commitment to double aid to the continent by 2010. A five-year plan was articulated to spend $60 billion to combat AIDS, malaria and other diseases. G8 leaders have also issued a strongly worded statement condemning the recent presidential election in Zimbabwe.

The summit has addressed the issue of rapidly increasing food prices around the world. Russia’s president Dmitry Medvedev (this summit was his first) drew attention from his colleagues to the fact that, according to the World Bank, only a quarter of the growth in food prices can be accounted for by the increased consumption in large countries such as India and China, whereas the rest of the growth is caused by accelerating use of the biofuel. President Medvedev called for the speediest transition to more efficient types of biofuels that would prevent taking over agricultural field and facilities that are designed to produce food.

Russia also called for the so-called Grain Summit, which would discuss the reasons for the rise in grain prices and possible ways to stabilize them.

However, the major achievement of this year’s summit has been a joint communiqué declaring that the countries will “consider and adopt” a 50 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. This pledge, dubbed “50 by 2050”, is to become part of a new United Nations treaty – to be negotiated in Copenhagen at the end of 2009 – to replace the 1999 Kyoto Protocol.

Two aspects make this agreement especially meaningful. First, it was for the first time that the United States, the world’s major pollutant, has agreed to join other major industrialized countries in their efforts to reduce emissions.

President Bush came to office in 2000, while denying the very existence of climate change, and for years, he resisted committing to any numerical goals of emission reduction. At the 2007 summit in Germany, the United States was the only country that refused to adopt the 50 percent target. President Bush’s turnaround, being seven years late as it is, is a remarkable step forward. More encouraging, the two presidential candidates, Sens. Obama and McCain, have promised to consider even larger emission reductions than agreed upon by Bush.

Second, the G8 communiqué makes it clear that developing countries such as China and India, who are rapidly turning into major greenhouse-gas polluters, must be included in any climate change treaty.

For years, China and India have maintained that industrialized counties must bear the greatest burden of emission reduction. Even at the summit, the “big five” – India, China, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa – reiterated that the developed countries must “take the lead” on the issue. Yet, for the first time in history, they have agreed to take their share of responsibility and to commit to long-range cuts in emissions.

The latest G8 summit shows that when world leaders act – if even in the ornamental fashion of the Kabuki Theater – a pressing world problem could be addressed. It is inaction that may result in a Greek Tragedy.

Add Images and Videos
Close X
Recommended Tags or Keywords
Search by Tags or Keywords
Selected Media ( You can Upload only Six media )
Sorry no picture found for this combination of tags. Try to search minimum number of tags at once
1 Stars
Chintan
Ambala, India
The G-8 Summit meetings are becoming quite farcical these days. Different countries have different agenda and more often than not go for one-to-one meetings with leaders. For example, the Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh went there to meet Bush to assure him that he is taking all measures to get the controversial 123 Nuclear Deal with the US through despite the risk of the government being pulled down.
1 Stars
Dear Chintan,

Thanks for your comment.

Besides other things, G8 is a ”party.” And when after going through the hassles of dressing-up and driving, you’ve finnaly gotten there, it’s only natural that you want to talk to as many people as possible.

Best Regards,
Eugene
1 Stars
David
Seoul, South Korea
The G-8 has not remained the G-8 anymore. It has become quite a farce now. If the current trend continues all countries would be in the G-8 one fine year some time in the distant future. In my opinion, the G-8 should be dissolved in 10-15 years from now.
1 Stars
Dear David,

Thanks for your comment.

The G8 has been created to address certain issues. These issues kept changing over years, and the G8 too was/is changing.

I have no problem with ”dissolving” the G8 in 10-15 years. The question though, is what will come to replace it? Unless, of course, you believe that none is needed.

Best Regards,
Eugene
2 Stars
Kenney
Hong Kong, Hong Kong
The G8 has become quite an elitist club now that many emerging economies like Brazil and India are trying to gain entry to thinking it would elevate their world standing and status. The world should be focusing on the problems marring the WTO and not some drama like G8. Ah! I almost forgot John McCain is threatening Russia out of the G8. :)
1 Stars
Dear Kenney,

Thanks for your comment.

I’m not sure at all that the WTO is more relevant than the G8. After all, McCain wants Russia out of the G8, but he doesn’t seem to mind Russia entering the WTO. :)

Best Regards,
Eugene
1 Stars
Sukhbahar
Ludhiana, India
The G8 is pathetic. I wonder if the leaders meet at the high table to discuss the weather wearing casual wear in exotic locations or do some really serious business. There is a lot of politics and very little action at the G8. Kyoto, WTO, rising food and fuel prices are discussed. I can't see anything done more than giving lip service to real issues and solutions.
1 Stars
Dear Ludhiana,

Thanks for your comment.

I certainly appreciate your negative attitude toward the G8, and my piece wasn’t supposed to change it overnight.

However, I do believe that there must be some meachanisms for solving world-wide problems. Do you believe that the UN is such a mechanism? I doubt it.

Best Regards,
Eugene
2 Stars
Jaiyant Cavale
Bangalore, India
G8 is more like the billionaire’s club you always read about. A few rich countries mustn’t be given the privilege to prevail upon the future of other countries. the +5+3+n countries wanting to join this billionaire’s club is well, pathetic is not the word.
1 Stars
Kevin
Buffalo, United States
Eugene, I believe you call yourself a Republican. Are you really one? Tell me honestly. I have enough reasons to suspect that you are not. By the way did you know that George Bush, our greatest ever president embarrassed us there with a joke about his poor environment record? How could you write something on a subject that shows how the Republican great has perpetually failed the world, and himself above all on environmental issues? Good that the creep is on his way out in the next six months.
1 Stars
Dear Kevin,

Thanks for your comment. When it’s time to announce my political affiliations, I’ll do that myself.

I just cannot agree with you that President Bush’s record on the environment is the only thing that the Republican Party can offer. What about Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California?

Best Regards,
Eugene
1 Stars
Daniel
Brisbane, Australia
Yeah he had the cheek to say "Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter" and then punched the air while grinning widely. It seemed a deliberate attempt to mock British PM Brown and French President Sarkozy, the biggest supporters of the Kyoto Protocol. This shows how arrogant these Americans are.
1 Stars
Dear Daniel,

Thanks for your comment.

The Bush’s turnaround shows that even the most stubborn of us can change. The only pity is that it took him this long.

Best Regards,
Eugene
1 Stars
Jaiyant Cavale
Bangalore, India
Mr Ivanov, why did Bush make the turnaround, maybe because his days at the White House is numbered? and because he wants to leave the office on a good note after soiling his hands?
1 Stars
Tiaan
Pretoria, South Africa
This is a stupid group because of the disdain towards shown by leaders who matter most. George Bush is concerned about oil prices and yet he is preparing for a war against Iran. He is worried about food prices and hunger, but he is encouraging food grain producing farmlands to bio-oilfields.
1 Stars
Dear Tiaan,

Thanks for your comment.

Will you submit that the world may need this ”stupid group” to challenge President Bush’s potentially dangerous policies?

Best Regards,
Eugene
3 Stars
Archie
Abuja, Nigeria
G8 means big leaders of big countries with big bombs talking about big global issues over big feasts and ending it with a big burp. G7 + 1 + 3 + 5 + n = G0 which is Good for Nothing. BIG ZERO.
1 Stars
Dear Abuja,

Thanks for your comment. Your math is a bit complicated to me :)

I definitely share your disdain for ”big zero” results of summits like that. But, perhaps, I’m slightly more optimistic than you.

Best Regards,
Eugene
1 Stars
Dear Abuja,

Thanks for your comment. Your math is a bit complicated to me :)

I definitely share your disdain for ”big zero” results of summits like that. But, perhaps, I’m slightly more optimistic than you.

Best Regards,
Eugene
1 Stars
I don’t know about you, but all these ”G’s” are starting to get irritating, because of a hand there are countries that still belive they are the masters of the world, and other countries, who want to be part of this club to grow their regional and global influence .
1 Stars
Dear Celso,

Thanks for your comment.

Sure, I can see why you don’t like countries that behave like ”the masters of ther world.” But what is wrong, say, with Brazil wanting to increase its regional and global influence? Will it hurt Brazilian citizens?

Best Regards,
Eugene
1 Stars
Jaiyant Cavale
Bangalore, India
Do we need a G8 summit at all.. It is a step in the right direction to be sanctioning money for the emancipation of the poor and needy, but why hasn’t the UN been in news lately. I believe, if the UN gets its act together it can do a great job, in fact better than any world body. Unfortunately, countries in G8+any other number you choose have sidelined the UN because it doesn’t serve their purposes of world domination.
1 Stars
Dear Jaiyant,

Thanks for your comment.

Perhaps, you’re raising the most complicated question of the world politics at all: do we or do we not need a ”forum” to address the world’s most pressing problems? Does this ”forum” have to be all-inclusive, but completely unmanageable like the UN? Or, it should be smaller but perceived ”elitist” like the G8? Or both? Or neither? Or something in between?

I don’t know the answers. But we all must try to find them.

Best Regards,
Eugene
1 Stars
Jaiyant Cavale
Bangalore, India
Dear Mr. Ivanov, your article doesn’t exactly laud the activities of G8, so Im glad about it’s ability to still give room for dissent. However, I’m not up against world forums other than UN if they really do a better job. But I doubt any world body that doesn’t include most if not all the countries would have a ’first-hand’ feel of the problems. UN has contributed a lot, a lot more than G8 can ever. UN peacekeeping forces have literally protected people in troubled areas. I doubt if the elite few can ever ’feel’ for the less privileged countries. I dunno if it has to be both, neither or something in between.. I certainly feel UN should be given more importance than what is being given today. UN itself was a creation after some of the worst wars the planet has seen. And we might be heading towards something worse than what history has seen, unless the UN steps in and do what it really is supposed to do. Like you say, UN is unmanageable but then some amount of chaos is unavoidable. G8 might avoid this chaos, but would be a one sided or polarized effort.
1 Stars
Dear Jaiyant,

Thanks very much for your thoughtful comments on the UN. I cannot but agree with you.

Best Regards,
Eugene
Add your Comment