Alright, fine. We will.

The next post to come is a slide show of the Ladies lantern ritual, where they took all of the desires and sent them up into cosmos with flying Chinese lanterns. Enjoy the experience!

The most pressing issue, in my view, is that these meetings are exclusionary. Perhaps this point seems obvious and easy to overlook since the summits are not global by definition; they are congregations of the Group of Eight and the Group of Twenty, not the entire globe. Plus it is difficult to know how many  people should be involved  if the Summit were to expand, seeing as it is almost impossible to imagine a functional meeting with all world leaders. Yet, I don’t think the issue of exclusion should be overlooked. And if you were one of the many who signed a petition calling for the inclusion of least developed countries (LDCs) in the G20 meetings, then you feel the same way. It only makes sense that a wide range of representatives be allowed to participate in the G20, particularly because the G20 is the gathering of the world’s most influential economic actors whose actions affect everyone, especially LDCs.

Of course, the debate over whether or not poor countries should take part in the meetings grew so heated that the Canadian Prime Minister was obliged to invite certain African countries to attend the G20 summit. The meetings, however, remain elitist. As Debapriya Bhattacharya, special advisor on LDCs, said at the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development on May 10th and 11th, “LDCs face a double challenge: they have to absorb the impact of the economic and financial crisis, but in the resolution of the crisis itself they have a very marginal role to play” (Reuters). This is not the most equitable or, seemingly, the most successful approach to solving today’s most pressing issues.

To be fair though, there are an awful lot of economic issues to tackle. In Harper’s official statement on the G20 he said, “We discovered that in the new world of the global economy whether the skies herald rain, or shine, or otherwise, we are all in the same boat. And though it is natural and expected that we will defend our national interest, that national interest must be enlightened. It must take into account the longterm needs of the entire global economy if we are all to prosper. We also can’t lose sight of our biggest economic challenge, and that is that recovery is by no means assured.” The speech (available here) doesn’t exactly inspire warm and fuzzies, but it does show that at least the rhetoric is on the right track. The reality, however, is yet to be revealed.

This is why many are taking to streets in an effort to shape the future, their futures, by protesting against different aspects of the meetings. Whether they are against the 1 billion dollar security budget, the environmental degradation caused by the attending industrialized nations, or the present day manifestation of capitalism these states are working hard to preserve, many will attempt to break down the wall of exclusion in an effort to have their voices heard at the summits. It may be through a cloud of tear gas, but if the music video below is any indication, the G8/20 Toronto Community Mobilization Network is prepared to do what it takes to go “all out” against the Summit. They believe these meetings further entrench the exploitation of people and the environment, and whether or not their actions are welcome, they are taking a stand.

My view is that the G8/20 Summit should be more open and inclusive, but that these meetings are ultimately necessary. Furthermore, they are an opportunity. Indeed, Canadian tax payers must foot the bill for the security costs, and Torontonians must put up with a heck of a lot of traffic for a few days. However, that should give us license to make demands on our leaders. We have the right to demand of them whatever we see just, within reason. And they are required to respond. So, despite the different degrees of controversy, the Summit is important. It is also inevitable, which means it might be best to  welcome it with tolerance then sit back and watch what our leaders do. But perhaps you’d prefer to take action and include yourself in the G8/20 dialog.The decision is up to you: greet the meet? Or take to the street?

Stigliz’s main argument is that the IMF has placed far too much faith in the free market and has sidelined its duty to bolster the market in order to avoid failures, as Keynes originally intended it to. Today the IMF focuses almost completely on maintaining low inflation, privatization, trade liberalization, and eradicating state intervention, and enforces this through forceful conditions on its program recipients. According to Stigliz, the IMF has confused the means of development with the ends, and consequently it does not adequately address broader economic growth rates, overall efficiency, and unemployment. The narrow focus and arrogance of the IMF’s approach has caused it to actually worsen certain economic crises in the developing world. For instance, during the East Asian crisis of the mid-90s the IMF continued to advocate a retraction of government regulation and social spending in Indonesia, which resulted in worsening conditions for the poor and ultimately years of instability.

In my view, it is the hypocrisy of the IMF and of Western style neo-liberalism at large that is the most frustrating point raised in Stigliz’s book. The way the IMF has positioned itself as a global dominator and, thus, a pseudo-colonial power is a step in the wrong direction down the path towards increasing globalization. Furthermore, the secretive and almost authoritarian operating procedure of the IMF and its intimate, if not incestuous, ties with the American financial community are upsetting. Finally, as Stigliz points out, the contradictions between the practices of Western economies and its prescriptions for the developing world are deeply unfair. The book closes, however, with an uplifting and motivating call for action. The closing paragraphs in this work by world renowned economist and Nobel laureate, Joseph Stigliz, give hope that certain entrenched and damaging economic practices can be changed, if we only make our discontent heard.