
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.

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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Thanks very much for your thoughtful comments on the UN. I cannot but agree with you.
Best Regards,
Eugene
Local Opinions (27)
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Thanks very much for your thoughtful comments on the UN. I cannot but agree with you.
Best Regards,
Eugene
Global Opinions (27)
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Thanks very much for your thoughtful comments on the UN. I cannot but agree with you.
Best Regards,
Eugene
Home

Delicious
Digg
Facebook
Reddit
Stumble Upon
Technorati
Mixx
Sphinn
Twitter
SphereIt
Propeller
Gmarks
Newsvine
Yahoo! My Web
Live Journal
Blinklist
E-mail
RSS 














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