Formed in the wake of a worldwide recession and the petroleum crisis of 1973, the Library Group brought together senior financial officials from Japan, West Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States. This informal forum of western economic influence began in 1974, with representatives from different sectors discussing issues of mutual or global concern. Topics of discussion included health, law enforcement, labor, economic and social development, energy, environment, foreign affairs, justice, terrorism and trade.
This was the conceptual foundation for a meeting of global leaders in 1975, gathered by French president Valery Giscard d’Estaing. He invited the heads of the six nations represented in the Library Group, along with the head of state from Italy to a conference that was known as the Group of Six, or G6. From there, it was agreed that the meetings should be annual.
The next year, Canada joined the summit, making them a Group of Seven (G7). The annual conference, or summit, continued on as the G7 until 1997, when President Bill Clinton invited Russia to join, form the Group of Eight (G8). Russia’s admission into the club was largely a response to Boris Yeltsin’s commitment to neoliberal economic policies in Russia, as well as neutrality toward NATO’s eastern expansion.
This has been a point of contention among critics, that membership is not based on economic prowess, but rather acceptance of western economic and foreign policy influence. In economic terms, the countries which comprise the Group of Eight are still major players. Together, they account for close to two-thirds of the world’s gross domestic product (GDP), although they comprise only 14% of its population.
Be that as it may, Russia does not rank within the top ten economies according to the World Bank. Both China and Brazil rank higher than Russia, at fourth and tenth respectively, but have not been extended an invitation to join permanently. China, Brazil, and India represent 40 % of the global population and almost 10 % of global GDP.
Their cumulative GDP is rising, and all three surpass Russia on the top ten. The most significant non-member is perhaps China, who for over a decade has garnered interest, and at times concern, over its economic expansion. Recently, China has become even more internationally visible.
Its diplomatic relations with Africa and Latin America and in its presence in international organizations serve as examples. China is proving itself to be adept at foreign relations maneuvering at a time when the United States, the unspoken G1, has proven to be increasingly clumsy. Despite this agility China is not a permanent member of the Group of Eight.
There is a distinct possibility that China doesn’t really need acceptance into the clique, though. The influence of the G8 is declining as a result of many factors. One would be its perceived inability to act on behalf of the planet-as-a-whole, and instead look out for the rich minority of people.
Already, in Latin America, individual countries are taking on a more autonomous attitude. This new political landscape is decidedly anti-imperialist in nature. Governments such as those in Bolivia, Cuba, and Venezuela, and slightly less adamant administrations in Brazil, Uruguay, and Argentina have seen a rise in radical social movements opposed to the economic policies of the last two decades.
This wave of rejection to what is called “the Washington Consensus” has strengthened countries historically impoverished by the positions and actions of the US and the European Union. These new principles are based on cooperation, national sovereignty, resource transfer and redistribution, and support for small farmers and cooperatives. One case in point is the first Peoples Trade Agreement (TCP) signed between Cuba and Venezuela in December 2004.
The agreement facilitates an exchange of medical resources and petroleum between both nations: Venezuela delivers about 96,000 barrels of low-cost oil per day to Cuba and Cuba sends 20,000 state-employed medical staff and thousands of teachers to the slums which surround Caracas. These actions are not in step with the common traits shared by the G8 members. As major shareholders in the IMF and World Bank, the recommendations made during the summits are put into practice by these highly secretive lending institutions.
Many critics believe these economic policies accelerate the concentration of wealth, attack workers’ rights, lower living standards for the vast majority of the population, attack cultural diversity, and harm the environment, particularly in countries now flexing muscle against the political conglomerate. For all of the presentation as a force for unmitigated good, the minority represented by the G8 are often a source of great poverty and hardship. As author George Monbiot puts it, “What the rich nations give with one finger they take with both hands.
” As this most recent summit drew to a close this past Friday, the general consensus was more commitments to end the suffering for which the member countries are largely responsible. One can certainly expect the plagues of disease and poverty to rage on for another year, until the next summit convenes. Perhaps then, there will be a rival summit of nations focused on actual prosperity instead of mere profit.
Leave Comments(0) | Email to a Friend | Print Article Opinion Pages: Don Siegelman and the Karl Rove Controversy Editorial writers weigh in on the political implications and aftermath of the Don Siegelman federal corruption case Pine Endorsement: Drew Carey as New Host of Price is Right! We tackle this big issue so you don't have to!
News RSS