The G-20 vs the United Nations

[xarir]

Paul Martin is currently taking a swing through Europe meeting various European leaders to discuss matters of mutual concern. I recently learned that one of the issues he's trying to garner increased support for is the G-20.

The G-20 is an economic forum based on the G7 / G8 model. The problem with the G7 is that only wealthy countries are at the table; representation from South America, African and Southern Asia is lacking, thus making it difficult for the G7 leaders to truly harmonize on economic matters that have global impact.

http://www.g20.org

Mr. Martin apparently has said that the UN is overly tied up in bureaucracy and thus is unable to deal with economic matters properly. I'm not sure if he actually has said this, but it is certainly a valid point. Although (IMHO) the UN still serves a useful purpose, we've seen, particularly in recent times, that the organization is tied down by its own internal policies to be able to move quickly and decisively in times of need.

I wonder though, if the G-20 could serve a greater purpose. If countries can approach economic and fiscal matters in a unified way, will it follow that social policies will ultimately be similarly aligned? We've seen the European Community grow and flourish. Can the same thing happen at a global level?

What do you guys think?

 

[Sargon]

...
The G-20 is an economic forum based on the G7 / G8 model. The problem with the G7 is that only wealthy countries are at the table; ...

http://www.g20.org

Looking at the list of countries in this group, the same argument should apply against G-20.


S.

 

[banshie]

Is Disneyland in the G-20?

 

[Sargon]

I think it is about time. The UN pays very little time to economic developement but it is a vital part of peaceful relationships.



bbk

The preamble to U.N. Charter states:


PREAMBLE

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED

to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and

to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,



AND FOR THESE ENDS

to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and

to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and

to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and

to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,


HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS

Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations.

END OF PREAMBLE


Clearly, "economic and social advancement of all peoples" is one of the objectives of the United Nation as such we should not need another organisation to do that. The problem is that this is a Utopian goal. The reality is that the 'Haves' don't want to share with 'Have-nots'. As long as there are people who believe in birth or divine rights, it will be extremely difficult if not impossible to construct a just global society no matter which group (G-7/8, G-20, ...G-40 or Group of All i.e., the U.N.) tries it.

That's my HO.

S.

 

[Paladin]

G-20 Doesn't Substitute for UN

If you look at the role of the G-20, it's mandate and goals are not the same as that of the UN. The goals of the G-20 are to promote dialogue between the industrial nations and emerging-market countries on key issues related to the international monetary and financial system and, in the process, to help strengthen the international financial architecture.

As a nation that is heavily reliant an international trade, we need to support this type of initiative. The key to having access to markets to sell our goods and services is having a strong and stable international financial architecture.

When I say that having a strong and stable international financial architecture is the not same as the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples, I mean that it is not necessary to improve the living conditions and lifestyles of all peoples for us to have profitable business ventures.

I can happily support business ventures that make profits from natural disasters, wars, political crises, and other events that create imbalances between the industrial nations and the emerging nations. We should all be motivated first by profit.

 

[langeweile]

How about removing some super power wannabe's like Germany, France, Italy and England?Replace them with one EU representative.
Add more relevant players maybe China,India, Brazil, one African representative or ??

 

[rama putri]

Why don't we just let the US run everything? Aren't they the torch bearer of freedom, democracy and the capitalist way?

I'll run and hide now.

 

[chawct]

The members of the G-20 are the finance ministers and central bank governors of 19 countries: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Russia, Saudi-Arabia, South Africa, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States.

As you may see there is a south american (Argentina, Brasil) an african (Republic of South Africa) and south asia (India) respresentation.

I think the first thing everyone has to learn is some GEOGRAPHY.

 

[langeweile]

The members of the G-20 are the finance ministers and central bank governors of 19 countries: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Russia, Saudi-Arabia, South Africa, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States.

As you may see there is a south american (Argentina, Brasil) an african (Republic of South Africa) and south asia (India) respresentation.

I think the first thing everyone has to learn is some GEOGRAPHY.

I didn't want to expand the G8 to too many members. That's why i suggested to remobve some of the super power wannabes and replace them with others.

 

[RogerRabbit]

The G-20 makes more sense to day than the G-8, imho!

www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentSe...847&call_pageid=968332188774&col=968350116467

'In Martin's eyes, the week was a great success. He says he won over Chirac and Putin on the issues of conserving fish stocks and creating the G-20.'

 

[langeweile]

The G-20 makes more sense to day than the G-8, imho!

www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentSe...847&call_pageid=968332188774&col=968350116467

'In Martin's eyes, the week was a great success. He says he won over Chirac and Putin on the issues of conserving fish stocks and creating the G-20.'

This was by far the best thing martin has done since I have been following him.
This is a sound idea, IMHO

I am not sure if France will be much of a help. Chirac's call for a "world tax" sounds too socialist to me.

 

[Sargon]

Re: G-20 Doesn't Substitute for UN

If you look at the role of the G-20, it's mandate and goals are not the same as that of the UN. ...

I've looked at G-20 website and You are right, G-20's mandate and goals are not the same as that of the UN.

I was misled by thread's title ''The G-20 vs the United Nations" and also xarir's reference to United Nations in his/her post.

S.

 

[Sargon]

Why don't we just let the US run everything? ...

In my opinion, G-7, G-8, G-20 etc. are, for all practical purposes, G-1 (Group of One) anyway.

U.S. Government is the real policy maker; others go along either willingly or for pragmatic reasons.

S.

 

[Sargon]

I'm sure they have a lot to say but I doubt if they have a lot of say. Just take the example of Canada's disputes with U.S. over softwood lumber and ban on Canadian beef.

I also doubt if G-20 is a Paul Martin idea. It was probably thought out by someone in Washington and then assigned to Paul Martin in the hope it might be more palatable to others if it comes from a Canadian rather than an American.

S.

 

[xarir]

It's unlikely that the G-20 is the idea of any one person - these things usually come from the minds of a few if not the minds of many. I think Paul Martin is one of the strongest proponents of the G-20 though; he was after all, the notional head of the G-20 for the first 2 years of its existence.

As for the US being the "sole" policy maker on the world stage, I just don't think that's true. The US certainly carries a lot of weight largely from its overwhelming military capability and its exceedingly strong economic position, but I dont' see that trend continuing. Already the Euro is a stronger currency than the USD. I personally believe that within our lifetimes we will see a world where prices are quoted as much, if not more in Euros than they are in USD.

 

[Sargon]

I have only a vague memory of P.E.T's NS debate (I was too busy trying to make ends meet in those days to have paid much attention to politics), so I'll take your word for it.

However, it appears that the discussion in this thread has drifted away from xarir's post and nobody seems to have properly addressed his/her origininal questions:

Question 1. Could G-20 serve a greater purpose?

It could if changes its objectives and structure. At the moment its philosophy seems to be that only rich and pro American countries have the wisdom to make policy on international trade. This attitude will prevent it from becoming anything better than a self-serving group.


Question 2. If countries can approach economic and fiscal matters in a unified way, will it follow that social policies will ultimately be similarly aligned?

No, it does not necessarily follow. I cannot say why but I can quote the example of Canada and U.S., who have very similar economic and fiscal policies but very different social policies.


Question 3. We've seen the European Community grow and flourish. Can the same thing happen at a global level?

It depends on what is meant by 'grow and flourish'. If it means countries coagulating into bigger and bigger trading blocks then the answer is ''yes!''. If it means everybody becomes equally well off, then the answer is 'Not necessarily!'.


Now I have a question for xarir:

Why are you concerned about these issues particularly, G-20?

 

[Sargon]

I personally believe that within our lifetimes we will see a world where prices are quoted as much, if not more in Euros than they are in USD.

Saddam tried to get paid for his oil in Euros rather than U.S. dollars and look what happened to him!

 

[mgincnj]

the UN blows chunks...it is soooo inefficient.

 

[xarir]

Now I have a question for xarir:

Why are you concerned about these issues particularly, G-20?

Concerned is not the right word really; "pondering" is a better way to describe my perspective on the G-20 right now. I'm really just seeking input, and for better or for worse, asking here is sometimes the best way to get people's honest and educated opinions.

Broadly speaking I've been taking stock of my life thus far. While this sounds grandiose it really isn't. It's just that events over the past 12 months or so have given me a moment of pause. In my deliberations I've generally come to the conclusion that while I've done well enough by any reaonsable measure, there's still much more to be done in life. To that end I've started to ponder how I can make a stronger impact on the world and generally contribute to making the world a better place.

Again this sounds grandiose, but I have come to the personal conclusion that I simply don't want to live my life in my corner of the world just going to work, coming home, going to work, coming home, going to work ...

Part of this issue is where I work (a major financial institution). At work I do things which notionally enrich people. And it is true - the work I do enables our company to do a lot of things more efficiently. I'm paid quite well for what I do, but at the end of the day the people most enriched by what I do and indeed by what our company does, are the shareholders as opposed to the little folks who fork over their hard-earned dollars. We don't prey on the little people, but we don't exactly do everything in our power to make their lives better. Ultimately we are in the business of making money - lots and lots of it - for our major shareholders. While I understand this (big business exists to make profit after all) I also have come to the conclusion that I don't want to be a part of this forever.

I used to think that when I find Her and get married & have kids, everything would just kind of fall into place. While I still think this eventuality will have a very positive impact on me, I have also come to the realization that I'm really looking for something else. Making money is fine, but helping to make a positive difference is rapidly becoming much more important to me. Thus the beginnings of my quest to help make a positive difference for as many people as I possibly can The UN and G-20 are institutions that notionally are dedicated to this end so there's an obvious avenue of interest for me.

I haven't yet fully decided what my next step is, but there's something out there that needs to be done and I'm the right guy to do it. (I say this with humble determination.) Small step by small step, I'm getting there.

 

[Sargon]

To: xarir


I asked this question because I wasn't sure if you were genuinely interested in world affairs or were just promoting G-20 and Paul Martin.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts and feelings and I wish you success in whatever goal you set for yourself.

S.