First, a confession: like much of the world, I hate the G8 (don't know the term? Try this site for a more academic look at the institution; or Wikipedia, if that is more your speed). I hate everything they stand for: a rich club, a smug club, an exclusive club. Who are they fooling? They eat each other's strange and wonderful foods (not so smart when one of the issues on the agenda is the global food price crisis). They don sanitized versions of local dress for embarrassing press photos, they talk about the big issues of the day only to come up with weak and grossly compromised communiqués (diplomatic speak for a short joint statement). Then they go home.
So, is the worst of it just a huge waste of resources with no outcome? No, there is a bit more to it than that. They do attract attention. If you care about one of the issues they discuss, you feel obliged to see what the sherpas cooked up as a final statement. I work on food - so what did the statement on the food crisis. have to tell us?
Well, at least one check mark for effort: they made a nod to local purchases for food aid (such a pity Bush could not persuade Congress of the merits of this, but still good to see a mention). How about food reserves? The leaders say (in para 6) "We will explore options on a coordinated approach on stock management, including the pros and cons of building a 'virtual' internationally coordinated reserve system for humanitarian purposes." First: WOW. They acknowledge that reserves at least might play a role. That, sadly, is progress. But not much -- what cons, exactly? I mean, what cons if you are concerned with food security and rural development, as opposed to corporate profits for behemoths like Cargill and co. It is hard to remember that the U.S. system of food reserves was only finally destroyed with the 1996 Farm Bill - 12 short years ago. I won't digress here - stocks deserve their whole, own blog. I guess the G8 get some credit for the mention of the topic - it is central after all. But they get absolutely no credit whatsoever for the result: the last thing the world needs is another study on reserves. We know reserves pretty well - they have been standard practice since the dawn of agriculture, and used as a political tool since the time of the Ancient Egyptians. Maybe earlier. We can conservatively assume well over 5,000 years of experience on that one. It is the idiocy of not managing a food reserve that might need study.
It costs hundreds of millions of dollars - yes, of your money, if you happen to live in a G8 country - to bring the leaders together. And this is all they accomplished? You probably read in your local paper how bold they were on climate change (not at all, in case you missed it). This year's show in Japan cost an estimated US$564 million. The Japanese also brought in 20,000 police to cordon off the resort town where leaders met. What does it say about the state of democracy today that the leaders of the "free" world no longer choose to meet where the public of their own countries congregate?
Maybe it is time for the rest of us to start to follow what animal behavior specialists recommend for creatures that do not respond to reason: just ignore them when they behave badly. Since the G8 governments rarely do any of the (few) things they promise anyway, why waste the ink, the air miles, the price of the hotel on going to watch and comment on their posturing? For years, NGOs have organized alternative G8 meetings. This year was no exception. This year, African organizations tried a new tack - they organized an international meeting for hundreds of activists in Katibougou, Mali to coincide with the G8 summit. Next year, when the G8 gathers in Maddalena, Italy, maybe it will be time for a citizens' boycott - we could invite the press to join us, since they seem so disaffected themselves.
