You could make a strong case that it is not in China's self-interest to become too close to the G8

[marmar]

from the Independent UK:


Hamish McRae: The balance of power is shifting

You could make a strong case that it is not in China's self-interest to become too close to the G8

Published: 30 May 2007

There is, in case you have not yet noticed, another G8 summit coming up in Germany. You will notice, if only because substantial protests are being planned, that "Smash G8" placards have been written, that wire barricades are being erected and that police are primed. Let's hope that the protestors do heed Angela Merkel's call to avoid violence, but put it this way: the swanky Baltic resort of Heiligendamm, complete with its sumptuous hotels and naturist beach, would not be a great place to choose for a quiet getaway next week.

The razzmatazz, as so often, obscures the substance - which is that the world economy is currently experiencing a global boom, and more than this a boom that is more widely dispersed than any previous one in human history. It is a boom that is rewriting the world's economic power book.

As a result, the G8 - the US, Japan, Germany, the UK, France, Italy, Canada and Russia - no longer represent the world's most buoyant economies. Power is shifting towards the twin Asian giants of China and India, both of which are growing far faster than any G8 member, even including Russia; and to the energy exporters of the Middle East, and to some extent to Latin America. Yes, we - that is "we" the West - are still important in the sense that we have the position of incumbency. But we become a little less important with every passing year. When these economic summits were started by President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing at the chateau of Rambouillet near Paris in November 1975, the six countries that took part (Canada and Russia joined later) could think of themselves as making the key economic decisions for the world.

They declared that they were "determined to overcome high unemployment, continuing inflation and serious energy problems", and you could at least acknowledge that it was within their authority to have a stab at these. Now they make similar declarations, though with the balance swung away from unemployment and towards poverty in Africa and concerns about the environment. But the outcomes are not really within their control, even if they could agree on the policies, which they can't. What the "non-G8" world thinks and does is ultimately going to be more important.

...(snip)...

There are a string of issues on the agenda at Heiligendamm but at their head is the one of the environment. At some stage the world will need to negotiate a new Kyoto agreement on carbon emissions and clearly countries such as China, India and Brazil will need to be party to this.

The present agreement, which is deeply unsatisfactory since it only covers the developed world, formally ends in 2012. It is in everyone's medium-term self-interest that is should be replaced with something more universal. It is in the interest of the new industrial giants because they are likely to suffer most from climate change. It is in the interest of the present developed world because it will be hard to sustain ever-tougher environmental measures if the effect of these is massively outweighed by increased emissions from the new developed world. So the geo-political bedrock for a deal is there. The market, too, will help a bit. Higher energy prices support conservation and a switch to cleaner technologies. But the lead has to come as much from the East as the West.

The headlines next week are going to be about the fissure between the positions of the US and the EU. Already the angry exchanges about the wording of the final communiqué are being leaked. Of course getting the US onside matters and it may be that we have to wait another 18 months for a new administration before much will move. We should however beware: a change in administration may change the rhetoric but it may not significantly change actual policy. .....(more)

The complete piece is at: http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_m_z/hamish_mcrae/article2594134.ece

[dave_p]

1. China should lead the south

"We should however beware: a change in administration may change the rhetoric but it may not significantly change actual policy."

That has to be the understatement of the year. There may be progress on climate change, but without a fundamental sea-change in Washington it'll be business as usual on other north-south issues.

China's best interest's long been in forging friendships with the developing world and with Russia. The G7's ruled unchallenged for two decades, and it's made a complete mess of the world. There'll be no progress on climate change or development while the poor countries have no voice, and the only way the rich countries are going to listen to them is if the superpowers are divided.

US-EU trade squabbles were always irrelevant to most of the world's producers. The rich had their chance to do something useful, they blew it: it's time the "South" got together with a big friend that shares many of its interests.