Post-G20: Nicolas’ thoughts

Thursday, 16 April 2009 | posted by Matt_BC
Activism, G-20 London Summit 2009, General

It has been a week since the leaders of the G20 attended the London summit. It has also been a week since I got back to France from an event with 19 fellow “Global Changemakers”. This week-long program, organised by the British Council, brought together young activists from all over the world – one from each of the G20 country – who had the opportunity to meet high level decision makers and finance experts. The most enriching experience, though, was exchanging perspectives with people from different cultures.

Now that the media madness around the G20 has started to cool down, I would like to share a few thoughts on the outcome of the summit that emerged from the discussions with the other Global Changemakers. As political leaders go on about how the whole future is at stake in these crucial weeks or months, I find it useful to give you a few conclusions drawn up with the help of these young people – i.e. the generation that will have to deal with most of the issues now being tackled – around two angles: the need to work together, and the way to tackle the crisis.

Global solutions to global problems: the need to work together

 
Even though it makes things easier not to have to make decisions, I think that brainstorming with the Global Changemakers was successful in at least one way: the young activists listened to each other and allowed for space for disagreement, which eventually led to harmonious and efficient work. In comparison, the need to join forces has not been completely fulfilled by the G20. Obviously, progress was made: the representation of global interests in the G20 is less unbalanced than in the G8, and UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who hosted the summit, insisted several times on the necessity to hear voices from poorer countries and held several meetings with leaders from the emerging and developing world before opening the London summit. However, if there really is a strong political will to widen the range of countries participating into global negotiations, why will the G20 meet again in the same configuration at the end of 2009? For the moment, let us assume that expanding the G20 will take some time. But patience is not enough: we have to be vigilant, and proactive so that, for instance, African countries besides just South Africa get invited to future summits.

It is a good thing that world leaders have publicly acknowledged that global issues can only be solved with global solutions. Working together must indeed take place on two levels: at the highlest level of state cooperation (i.e. heads of state meeting) and at the level of civil society. This can only occur if leaders appear serious when sharing their concerns about issues affecting every citizen and determined to take coherent actions when suggesting solutions. Cooperation has to work at both levels: the second requirement is that civil society does enough to hold political decision makers accountable for the follow up.

Tackling the real issues

 
The need to work together on global issues long preceded the public announcement of a state of crisis, and one could have wished that its acknowledgment not be triggered by urgency. However, this is not a reason for inaction now. Tackling the roots of the crisis is a necessity. This is where the G20 might have partially taken the wrong path. To implement solutions, you first need to have processed the true causes of a crisis. Unfortunately, it seems that G20 leaders have almost skipped this stage, agreeing very quickly on a few shallow formulas that only reveal half of the truth and hide some of the real problems. Among the few sentences that highlight the issues in the communiqué are these two: “World trade growth has underpinned rising prosperity for half a century. But it is now falling for the first time in 25 years”; “Major failures in the financial sector and in financial regulation and supervision were fundamental causes of the crisis”. These assertions are either false or oversimplified accounts of the situation. First of all, the prosperity brought by world trade growth is at least questionable and not well distributed – highlighted by the fact that the most severe consequences of the crisis hit the developing countries rather than the richer ones. Moreover, labeling simple failures in the financial system as a fundamental cause narrows down the range of plausible relevant explanations: this lack of regulation is only one side of the issue. Making it the focus is a mistake in the sense that the main structural questions will not be dealt with, chiefly: the seeking of profit and the oblivion of human development. Several leaders mention their intention to “moralise capitalism”, which is nonsense – either a misunderstanding of the situation or a hidden agenda not to address the systemic causes of the crisis. One cannot make a system moral or immoral; a system is neutral and has to be assessed in terms of efficiency. In 2009, the system still fails, since it leaves behind the vast majority of the world’s individuals and clearly puts aside the social and human bases of development which should be both the means and the end of growth or progress.

In that respect, stimulus measures taken by the G20 will only have a positive impact if they choose the right targets. First of all, the huge amounts of money allocated to the IMF and the World Bank have to be used in a clever way. This cannot be a one-way process; we are not talking about charity here. Once again, it is a matter of doing the right thing in everybody’s interest. Developing countries must share in the decisions that will have consequences on every man and woman on the planet. This money is not a gift to poorer countries; ownership has to be reinforced.

Getting back on track to reach the MDGs

 
The communiqué mentions the MDGs and reasserts the commitments taken on that matter. This is a key point: either those lines were just dropped in to make the communiqué look good or there is a real will to get back on track and stop wasting time on reaching the MDGs. If governments take the first path, then no measure – however revolutionary and ambitious in other fields – will be likely to trigger a sustainable development. If the second path is followed, the very basic requirements will be fulfilled and development efforts will have a stronger basis to rely upon. No economy can grow if its workforce is dying or too ill to work. Health should not even be labeled a “priority”; it is absolutely essential and comes before anything else. As for today, MDGs related to health are those suffering from the most important delays. Even more crucial are sexual and reproductive health and rights, particularly as far as women are concerned. It would be absurd to talk about growth and not take into account the speed at which the population grows in developing countries; in spite of that, population issues are completely absent from the communiqué. The gender gap is not mentioned either, although empowering the majority of women whose potential is denied would allow quick and long lasting progress.
 
To conclude, the G20 summit set some guidelines that are useful to some extent. However, the suggested improvements are very limited and require much attention to be enacted. Inaction would be fatal, and action that has not been thought out would not be better. But it is not valid to accuse the G20 leaders of “just talking” last week. The summit was meant to launch a process. What is important is the follow up. We will know in a couple of months whether this actually was a start towards more cooperation or whether it was just an attempt to buy some time, with no intention to make structural changes occur.

As Global Changemakers, we cannot be satisfied with just disapproving actions taken and blaming our leaders if nothing is solved. We have to get to work ourselves. In our respective communities, wherever we can have our voices heard, we have to keep on raising awareness and debating with each other. We have to share the responsibilities and the workload if we want to share the benefits in the future, and make change happen.

- Nicolas