How relevant is the G8?

By Mohamed Sid-Ahmed

For while it may be true that the G8 is an informal body with no binding authority which is concerned primarily with providing a forum for the exchange of views between eight specific states, it is also true that those states are the richest in the world (together accounting for 60 per cent of the gross international product), as well as the most industrialised and, hence, the most influential countries on earth. Initially composed of the seven leading capitalist states making up the bulwark of the Western world, the Group of (what was then) Seven expanded its membership to incorporate Russia following the demise of the Soviet Union.

Moreover, informal bodies have occasionally proved to be more effective than formal ones. A case in point is the Davos Forum, an informal group made up of a number of top world statesmen and political, economic and technical elites, whose regular meetings in the relaxed setting of the eponymous Swiss resort have turned out to be more effective than many formal international institutions. It was thanks to the sponsorship of the Davos Forum, for example, that Arab-Israeli economic summits have been convening regularly once a year since 1994, and have become one of the main yardsticks by which progress in the Middle East peace process was measured. The regularity was disrupted when last year's Doha summit was widely boycotted by the Arab states because of Netanyahu's systematic obstruction of the peace process.

One explanation for the emergence of informal global bodies is the failure to update the structure of such an important official body as the United Nations in line with the realities -- and requirements -- of the present world structure. In its actual form, the international organisation reflects the immediate post-World War II global setup, when it was founded to consecrate the victory of the Allied forces over the Axis powers. It is the victors of World War II (the Soviet Union having been replaced by Russia) who today, over fifty years later, continue to occupy the five permanent seats on the Security Council and to enjoy exclusive veto powers. But much water has flowed under the bridge since the defeat of Nazi Germany, and the structure of the world system has seen dramatic changes.

The Soviet Union is no more. Germany and Japan have risen from the ashes to become economic giants. The UN is now required to cope not with the post-World War II configuration but with the post-Cold War configuration. And yet no procedural rules have been laid down to bring about the much needed structural changes in the international organisation to reflect present-day realities. So informal bodies spring up instead, to fulfil tasks that formal bodies are not equipped to handle meaningfully and effectively.

Just before the G8 meeting in Birmingham, a group composed of representatives of 15 developing countries from Asia, Africa and Latin America gathered in Cairo to deliberate over problems they have in common. Such offshoots in a variety of directions are an inevitable consequence of the lack of a basic institutional structure. There is also the fact that one superpower would like the world order to remain unipolar, that is, under its exclusive leadership, while unable to advocate such a scenario openly; a collective of great powers like the G8 offers it the opportunity to disguise its ambition by providing it with a setting in which it can appear to be merely the first among equals.

The Birmingham meeting did not achieve much, despite the determination of Tony Blair, who was hosting the G8 this year, to enhance its effectiveness. A number of files were selected for thorough consideration: the debt of the poorest countries, worldwide unemployment, the future of the international financial architecture. All in all, the results were disappointing. Commitment to a global effort aimed at debt-reduction before the year 2000 remained hazy. No formal decision was taken by the heads of state concerning the need to reconsider the mechanisms of financial institutions after the disastrous market breakdown in Southeast Asia. Nowhere did the final declaration make any mention of democracy as a basic ingredient for economic growth, a trend that is likely to become still more pronounced if Jacques Chirac's call to have China invited to the future gatherings of the group is endorsed. However, some positive results were achieved, with the leaders of the G8 pledging to remove some of the obstacles hindering job opportunities, to reinforce measures against discrimination in the job market and to intensify the fight against organised crime.

An interesting test of the effectiveness of the G8 would be its readiness to adopt the proposal advanced by French and Egyptian presidents Chirac and Mubarak during the latter's recent visit to Paris. Both presidents called for the convocation of an international conference of all the countries concerned with overcoming the present stalemate in the negotiations, with the exception of the two main protagonists, the Netanyahu government and the Palestinian Authority. Such a conference would expose Netanyahu as the real culprit in the present breakdown of the peace process. Netanyahu has openly stated that he opposes such a conference. The question now is where the American administration stands on the issue and how far President Clinton is ready to go in challenging Netanyahu's defiance. Clinton's displeasure with Netanyahu's behaviour is an open secret. The statement made by Hillary Clinton on television some weeks ago on the need for a Palestinian state, though officially disavowed by the administration, cannot be dismissed as a slip of the tongue.