What do you think about the G20 Summit for 2008?

Question

The leaders of the 20 so-called largest powers of the world gathered together to discuss a number of matters of international concern, most notably the current financial crisis that seems to be a problem all over the world. A number of reported facts struck me as ironic.

In the first place, the Summit, which was to be representative of the entire world, contained the leaders of only 20 nations, as if the other nations, numbering far larger than 20, make no diffference at all.

The leaders met behind closed doors rather than in the open to discuss matters that were supposed to be affecting the entire population of the world, which could be considered as the general public.

The leaders deplored a state of lawlessness where matters of world trade are concerned, when, in fact, the whole system of barter, as it is practised, probably is already bound by an overwhelming set of stringent of rules too numerous to not present contradictions. They felt that more acknowledgement of countries outside the Western powers was necesssary, when all countries seem to barter under the same sytem. In fact, they probably sought to solve the problem of barter - which is not even exchange as it is practised - through the process of barter itself. Does it make sense?

The leaders discussed the role of too much credit in the financial crisis, and pondered about the world financial crisis itself while drinking $500 per bottle wine, which allegedly can be as cheap as $400 per bottle on discount.

I was listening half indifferently to the news accounts of this Summit until a commercial broke the monotony. It was a commercial for ING financial institution, bragging about how easy it is for someone to obtain credit from this company.

Do you find this gathering of leaders to be a hypocritical deflection from what realistically has to happen?

Answer 1

Best Answer - Chosen by Voters

Of course their hypocritical, why do you think their meeting in Peru. Peru is an example of how to control countries with a new version of puppet government through free trade. First, they put in the destroyer (Alejandro Toledo, he destroyed Peru's infrastructure) and then they send in the sell out (Alan Garcia, passed free trade, etc). Now, other countries will see how they can manipulate other countries. So, get ready for more wars, false elections, and false terrorist attacks (all done with the talented CIA & other G20 associates).

Answer 2

I completely agree. They should have been drinking 2 buck chuck in this economy to start with. European banks leveraged themselves even more than American banks and are now blaming the American loose credit policies for their problems, like a flu they caught from us when they were doing exactly the same thing only to a larger extent. All countries bear the same responsibility for this financial crisis and free trade does impact the situation only in that there is huge imbalances between debtor nations and those who own the debt. I really wonder whether Bush called the meeting because it was his last opportunity before leaving office to have a photo opportunity with the leaders of the world. Nothing substantial came from it.

Answer 3

While I think it is likely a case of "too little, too late", I suppose the leaders of the G20 should be commended for at least attempting to get the ball rolling and have discussions that are further and wider reaching than the usual G8 nations. I'm in full agreement they have a long way to go, but at least they are inviting other voice to be heard, which is a step in the right direction.

That said, I also agree that they didn't seem to accomplish much. One must wonder if this is because Bush, the leader of ostensibly the most powerful of those G20 nations, is on his way out and presumably his replacement will want to hold similar discussions when he has the actual power to do so. Perhaps the other G19 nation leaders non-verbally acknowledged this and so this meeting was just a 'kick-off' and the real meeting will start in 2009.

Regardless, I totally agree that it was completely inappropriate in this day and age for the leaders to be shown drinking such expensive bottles of wine and brandy and generally behaving like it was a weekend all expenses paid getaway. No one's suggesting they should have ordered McDonald's takeaway, but they certainly could have done more with less, as the rest of the (real) world is forced to do on a daily basis.

This is a time of great and dire turmoil across the world and they should have shown respect and gravitas for the situation by not flaunting their wealth. Let's face it, none of those 20 leaders are likely to be applying for social assistance or literally wondering where their next meal is coming from or how they are going to make ends meet, are they? This lack of respect for the people they represent is a large part of the reason why people have such little faith in elected leaders these days. It would have been entirely possible for the G20 summit to be held without such extravagances, and one can only hope that in the future, similar meetings will be more circumspect -- less 'partying', more 'do-ing'.

Source(s):

my own cynicism ...