Why G8 is toothless?
When is the last time anybody heard the US even feigning a word of concern for the world's poor, asks Binay Kumar.
ne of the reasons why the Bush administration is losing the battle for the world's hearts and minds is precisely that it fights only the war on terror, while turning a cold and steely eye away from the millions dying of hunger and disease. When is the last time anybody heard Vice-President Dick Cheney even feigning a word of concern for the world's poor?" Jeffrey Sachs raised this uncomfortable question in an article he wrote for The Economist.
Sachs is considered one of the world's foremost economists, having advised dramatic reforms in Bolivia, Poland, and Russia. Long affiliated with Harvard, first as a student and then as a tenured professor since the 80s, in early 2002 Sachs was named director of the Columbia University's famed Earth Institute. His is an important voice when it comes to any debate on world poverty and our failure in curbing its spread.
Continuing our discussion from last week, Sachs's question is a good starting point to reflect on the hyped strategy of banishing poverty from the world, which the G8 summit this week is placing high on its agenda. This week has also seen the high-profile Bob Geldof's Live 8 concerts across the world held apparently to focus on the question of world poverty, in particular the plight of the African continent.
The choice of "Live 8" as the name for the series of these concerts held on July 2 is indeed insightful. The 8 denotes the wise eight who meet at Gleneagles in the coming days. The obvious implication is its that these eight politicians hold the key to making poverty history.
Sir Bob certainly seems to think so. Referring to the Live Aid concerts held in 1985, he recently said, "We couldn't change politics 20 years ago. It was a different world. Now it's not a charity, it's about political justice." Live 8, he says, "has to be this great national moment. This country gets to change the world and tilt it in favour of the poor. … These eight guys should to this thing."
Why is Sir Bob's confidence misplaced? And, for that matter, Sachs may be asking the right questions, but does he have the right answers? Both have fallen victim to a highly tempting philosophy which assumes that someone somewhere must be in supreme control of the global economy and, therefore, if pressured enough, could turn the appropriate levers to set into motion changes that will set things right. In the case of the G8, the underlying argument is that the central repository of power and, therefore, infallible wisdom, is the United States of America.
I wish it were so. It would be great if an all-powerful, all knowing agent of change could be found in the world of free wheeling disparate self-interested. The truth, however, is just the opposite; the G8 is an all exclusive rich man's club. It's a toothless talking shop when it comes to such serious issues as global poverty and underdevelopment. As the all-embracing economic philosophy of globalization has spawned modern thinking, we have discovered to our horror that no one is really in control; that the global economy actually runs on a kind of auto-pilot and governments and their select agencies such as the IMF, the WTO and the World Bank are no more than puppets in a much larger game over which they have no significant control.
Sachs is absolutely right in saying that "Our interconnectedness on the planet is the dominating truth of the 21st century". He is, however, wrong in his conclusion, "….the world's poor live, and especially die, with the awareness that the United States is doing little to mobilize the weapons of mass salvation that could offer them survival, dignity and eventually the escape from poverty."
It is only partially true a benevolent intervention from the White House or the Downing Street may help reduce or cancel debt and increase aid to poor countries. It is equally true that such measures would perhaps provide some short-term relief, some tinkering here and there. Would that however bring the fundamental restructuring of the global economy, which alone can bring equitable distribution of the world's resources?
In so far as Bob Geldof's concerts and Blair's diversionary tactics under the guise of a 'banish poverty' campaign may have helped focus our attention on underdevelopment, poverty and climate change, they need to be applauded for acting by default.
More important, however, is to recognize that aid and debt are merely symptoms of a global market economy that isn't working. It would be plainly naïve to link reform of the world economy to the ability, willingness or noble intentions of a select group of politicians to provide aid or debt relief that will somehow make poverty history.
The global economy as defined in terms of market performance is essentially a closely-knit nexus of corporations, investors and business executives who are its main actors and players. And the ideal of a market economy is free competition; profits its only deity.
However, in a competitive global market any corporation or investor taking on greater social or environmental responsibility - and thus an increase in its costs - would only lose out to less responsible competitors causing a loss of its profits, a consequent loss of jobs and, ultimately, the prospect of becoming the target of a hostile takeover. In such a situation, maximizing profits is the only viable strategy for a corporation or it's CEO.
As David C Korten pointed out in his highly respected work, When Corporations Rule the World, "With financial markets demanding maximum short-term gains and corporate raiders standing by to trash any company that isn't externalizing every possible cost, efforts to fix the problem by raising the social consciousness of managers misdefine the problem. There are plenty of socially conscious managers. The problem is a predatory system that makes it difficult for them to survive. This creates a terrible dilemma for managers with a true social vision of the corporation's role in society. They must either compromise their vision or run a great risk of being expelled by the system."
It is a basic premise of democracy that each individual has equal rights before the law and an equal voice in political affairs- one person, one vote. We can rightfully look to the market as a democratic arbiter of rights and preferences only to the extent that money and property are equitably distributed. Although a market can allocate efficiently with less than complete equality, when 358 billionaires enjoy a combined net worth of $760 billion - equal to the net worth of the poorest 2.5 billion of the world's people - the market is neither just nor efficient and it loses all legitimacy as a democratic institution.