Tiene razón el gobernador del Banco de España cuando afirma: «Hasta el momento, las autoridades públicas de la mayoría de los países han resistido con notable éxito las tendencias intervencionistas y nacionalistas y se han dado pasos determinantes en la búsqueda de soluciones cooperativas en el ámbito financiero». Las lecciones de la crisis del 29 son demasiado evidentes para olvidarlas. Pero no estoy seguro que se haya hecho todo lo posible, ni siquiera que pasado el miedo al derrumbe del sistema financiero los países no vuelvan a las andadas. No debo ser el único que anda preocupado, el hoy director del departamento del Mercado de Capitales del FMI y anterior subgobernador de la autoridad monetaria española, José Viñals se ha visto obligado a alertar que se está perdiendo la oportunidad irrepetible de adoptar a escala internacional un nuevo modelo de regulación y supervisión financiera, y que si no se hace ahora no se hará nunca.

La Unión Europea no ha dado precisamente un ejemplo de cooperación interna. Ha sido incapaz de adoptar posiciones comunes en temas trascendentales. Sigue por ejemplo sin haber acordado unos principios operativos de recapitalización bancaria que eviten que las ayudas del Estado impongan una desventaja competitiva a las entidades que no han tenido que recurrir a fondos públicos. Tampoco sabe qué hacer con la supervisión de los grandes bancos transnacionales más allá de los famosos colegios de supervisores cuya operativa concreta es incierta y sigue descansando sobre el intercambio voluntario de información entre agencias nacionales. Su desacuerdo interno le ha impedido marcar la agenda y dominar el debate internacional.

Es fácil criticar los problemas de organización del país anfitrión, Italia, pero lo cierto es que, más allá de la retórica, siguen primando los intereses nacionales y los países andan más preocupados de cómo salvar a sus propios bancos que en construir un sistema financiero europeo sólido. No debería de extrañarnos. En nuestro propio país estamos asistiendo al espectáculo de cómo las Comunidades Autónomas amenazan con no acatar el plan de salvamento de las Cajas de Ahorros, una terminología más exacta que el aséptico acrónimo FROB, si no se les garantiza que tendrán la última palabra en el proceso y se aseguran el control del resultado.

Es cierto que la institucionalidad internacional es difusa, de legitimidad discutible, sin reglas claras y con demasiadas concesiones a la improvisación y el marketing. Sigue heredera de un reparto de poder en el mundo que no se corresponde con la realidad económica actual. El propio G-8, que agrupa a las potencias económicas tradicionales más Rusia, se ha visto obligado a abrir su mesa al grupo de grandes países emergentes (Brasil, China, India, México, Suráfrica y Egipto) no sólo para ganar credibilidad sino, conviene no olvidarlo, porque necesita su dinero en los procesos de recapitalización bancaria en marcha. España es una de las grandes perdedoras de este proceso. No es culpa del gobierno actual ni de su Presidente. Pero sí es su responsabilidad no tener una política clara, realista y de Estado. Una política que no puede consistir solo en buscar la foto de la consagración internacional. Ni tampoco en pensar que estas cosas se resuelven con amigos poderosos que compartan ideologías presuntamente progresistas. La política internacional es cuestión de intereses y no de ideologías.

Desgraciadamente llegamos tarde en su momento al reparto de sillas y para el nuevo reparto que ahora se está escenificando, los intereses y las realidades económicas se han desplazado al mundo emergente. Por eso debería ser política de Estado hacer avanzar una voz única europea, y jugar nuestras bazas en la conformación de esa voz única. Sin eufemismos, no nos interesa que nos inviten a los postres sino que haya muchas menos sillas en el banquete. Aunque se venda peor en términos de pequeña política doméstica.

La dinámica de las cumbres actuales adolece en mi opinión de demasiado trabajo para la galería. Se ha impuesto un esquema de funcionamiento que hace que los documentos finales aprobados en cada encuentro se parezcan más a programas electorales que a planes estratégicos. No pueden faltar alusiones genéricas, vacías de contenido, a todos los tópicos al uso, desde el cambio climático a los problemas de género, el drama del sida o el compromiso antiproteccionista.

Es obvio que así no se puede avanzar. Parecería más productivo concentrarse en cada cumbre en un tema concreto y aprobar un auténtico plan de acción, con compromisos cuantificables, con fechas de realización y consecuencias para los incumplidores. Sé bien que muchos piensan que es la hora de la política, pero soy de la opinión que al menos en temas de gestión, harían bien los políticos reunidos en L´Aquila en hacer un poco de benchmarking empresarial y aprender de cómo funcionan los Consejos de las empresas bien gestionadas. Se empezaría por hacer un calendario de reuniones para el próximo ciclo, digamos dos años, con su orden del día correspondiente y con las personas, supongo que en este caso países, encargadas de presentar propuestas de resolución que puedan ser aprobadas y aplicadas inmediatamente después de la Cumbre. Seguiría decidir quién tiene que estar para cada tema, lo que nos llevaría a un esquema de geometría variable donde España, por ejemplo, no podría faltar en temas financieros pero no sería invitada en temas estratégicos, donde Turquía sería un invitado necesario. Y se podría terminar con establecer mecanismos de verificación y cumplimiento.

Resulta obvio que la prioridad en el momento actual es la economía y los bancos. Un tema latente es el status del dólar como moneda de reserva dominante y la infravaloración de la moneda china. Hay miedo a una crisis cambiaria, que es lo único que nos faltaba. No se ha podido tratar a fondo porque la violencia interétnica en Xinjiang y la política de represión sin contemplaciones han obligado al presidente chino a regresar a su país. Pero habrá que resolver pronto el problema, porque los desajustes ahorro inversión globales continúan y amenazan con echar al traste cualquier atisbo de recuperación. Hacen falta ideas claras y liderazgo internacional para poner encima de la mesa esquemas que impidan que un país, por grande que sea, se beneficie de incumplir sus responsabilidades internacionales. En el tema estrictamente financiero urge aprobar sin más dilación las nuevas medidas de regulación y supervisión que se basan en principios simples pero poderosos: mejor regulación, más transparencia, mínimo coste fiscal y soluciones de mercado. Y empezar a preparar lo que se conoce como una estrategia de salida, que es un eufemismo más para describir la urgencia de disponer y presentar planes de consolidación fiscal que eviten una crisis fiscal global. Una agenda lo suficientemente ambiciosa para especializarse en ella. Pero no ha sido el caso porque falta liderazgo político y el único que podría ejercerlo no parece partidario de tomar decisiones sino de agotar el poder blando.

Let’s hear it for Silvio Berlusconi. A bargain basement Benny Hill he may be, but the prime minister fonder of cavorting with young women than keeping promises to the world’s poorest countries has helped expose what a cynical shambles the G8 summit has become.

Officials say that this year’s shindig in L’Aquila will be the most pointless ever – and, believe me, that is saying something. It is up to the host country to set the tone for the meeting, which involves preparing an agenda and chivvying the other, reluctant, members of the club to sign up to a high-minded initiative to eradicate poverty from Africa, tackle climate change and fight the good fight against protectionism by completing the Doha round of trade talks. The G8 commitment to these plans lasts as long as it takes the motorcade to hightail it back to the airport.

Berlusconi’s failure to play the game has so embarrassed the other G8 members that the White House has taken the unprecedented step of working up an agenda on Italy’s behalf. There is talk of a new initiative aimed at increasing food security. On past form, only two things can be certain about this initiative: G8 countries will either not pay up or will take the money from an existing budget.

Nevertheless, it is a sign of just how bad things are this year that the other members of the G8 are encouraging speculation that Italy might suffer the humiliation of being replaced by Spain – a country that is increasing its aid budget rather than cutting it, and has a higher per-capita GDP than this year’s host. This is unlikely to happen, although Berlusconi has done himself no favours by asking his guests to stump up to help rebuild L’Aquila after April’s earthquake while cutting Italy’s bilateral aid budget by 56%.

But why stop at Italy? Most other G8 leaders use the summit as a glorified photo-opportunity; Berlusconi has simply stopped pretending that the annual talkfest serves any real purpose. His supreme indifference to having any meaningful discussion has the beneficial side-effect of forcing the G8 to justify its own existence. That’s not going to be easy. The growing importance of China, India and Brazil means that the centre of gravity for economic decision-making is already shifting to the G20, a body on which the bigger developing countries are represented.

If the G8 is to survive, it will have to find a niche and lead by example. The summit leaders represent countries that account for 80% of aid to poor countries. That explains why the most memorable summits of recent years – Birmingham in 1998, Cologne in 1999 and Gleneagles in 2005 – were dominated by development. After much arm-twisting by Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, the G8 agreed at Gleneagles to a package that involved debt relief, an opening-up of western markets to exports from poor countries, and a doubling of aid budgets.

Unless there is a marked improvement over the next 12 months, the Gleneagles accord will be broken. Too many countries are still burdened with unpayable debts, and G8 countries are way off course with their aid pledges. As for trade, the Doha round has become the international community’s version of the Jarndyce v Jarndyce case in Bleak House; never-ending and so complicated that the parties have quite forgotten how it started in the first place.

Brown, to his credit, is trying to get the G8 to raise its game. He wants a league table to show how well each country is doing in meeting its Gleneagles aid pledges (Britain, perhaps unsurprisingly, would come top). The portents are not good. The G8 countries like making promises but they are less keen on being held to account for the outcomes. The next country to host the G8 will be Canada, where the prime minister, Stephen Harper, cares as little about development as Berlusconi does. Why worry, say some? The idea of a fireside chat between world leaders might have been a good idea when Giscard d’Estaing dreamt it up in 1975, but it’s now time to face reality and scrap the G8 altogether.

This is a compelling argument, but there are two reasons why it is worth giving the G8 a brief stay of execution. The first is that there are, whatever the high-profile critics say, plenty of examples of where aid has worked. Even at a time of tight public finances, a promised $50bn increase in aid is chickenfeed, particularly when set against defence budgets, but will save many lives and put children in school.

The second is that the G8′s failure is a blow to international co-operation at a time when it has never been more needed. Pascal Lamy, the director-general of the World Trade Organisation, says if the global community can’t deliver on “easy” issues like trade and development there is scant hope it can tackle the much thornier issues of global warming or re-regulation of financial markets.

Lamy is right, even though a Doha deal looks (marginally) more likely than a revitalised G8. Like the League of Nations it is the wrong body with the wrong members at the wrong time. Italy last hosted a summit eight years ago when an anti-G8 protester was killed by riot police in Genoa. There is unlikely to be much of a demo this year, but none is needed. The G8 is quite capable of destroying itself.

All politics are local, goes the old aphorism. Yet today, we can say that all problems are global. As world leaders meet at the G8 summit in Italy, they will have to update their politics to grapple with problems that none of them can solve alone. The last two years have witnessed a cascade of interconnected crises: financial panic, rising food and oil prices, climate shocks, a flu pandemic, and more. Political co-operation to address these problems is not a mere nicety. It has become a global necessity.

The intensity of global interconnectedness is stunning. The H1N1 influenza virus was identified in a Mexican village in April. By now it has reached more than 100 countries. The effects of the collapse of Lehman Brothers last September were transmitted worldwide within days: soon even the most remote villages in Africa, Asia and Latin America were feeling the shock of reduced remittance income, cancelled investment projects and falling export prices. In the same way, climate shocks in parts of Europe, Australia, Asia, and the Americas in recent years contributed to soaring food prices that hit the poor and created instability and hardships in dozens of countries.

No nation or world leader can solve these problems alone. True, politicians answer to local voters. But those voters want solutions that can’t be achieved within any country’s own borders. Every country faces worsening climate shocks that result from worldwide greenhouse gas emissions, not just those within national borders. A recent report by the United States government, to pick but one example, warns that “business as usual” in climate policy will result in severe droughts in the American southwest, intense storms and flooding in the Gulf of Mexico, and torrential rains in the northeast. America’s politicians will be answerable, but heading off these dire effects requires a global agreement.

This is the reason why I am calling on the G8 to act on a set of crucial issues over the coming 12 months. Some are within the purview of the G8 countries; others require global agreements by all members of the United Nations. Either way, given their past commitments, the size of their economies, their countries’ disproportionate share of greenhouse gas emissions, and their responsibilities as donor countries, the G8 leaders have a special obligation to lead.

First, the G8 and other major emitters of greenhouse gases must intensify their work to seal a deal at the UN climate change conference in Copenhagen in December. That agreement must be scientifically rigorous, equitable, ambitious and exact. Achieving the goal of limiting the global mean temperature increase to two degrees Celsius will require nations to cut carbon emissions by 50% by 2050. The G8 and other industrialised countries must take the lead by committing to emission cuts of at least 80% from 1990 levels.

Any effective accord must help vulnerable countries – especially the poorest of the poor and the highly vulnerable arid and island nations – adapt to climate change. It must provide promised financing to poor countries to build sustainable energy systems and climate-resilient economies, and it must create a system for developing and then transferring green technologies for worldwide benefit.

If the Copenhagen negotiations are to be a success, world leaders must do more than talk about leadership. They must show it. That is why I am calling all world leaders to the UN on September 22 for a global summit on climate change. I expect them to be there. Our future is at stake.

Second, the G8 should take specific steps needed to honour long-standing but unfulfilled pledges of support to poor countries to help them achieve the millennium development goals. Back in 2005, the G8 itself promised to double aid to Africa by 2010. It is now more than $20bn per year short of that pledge, with just one year to go. The very credibility of the G8 is on the line, as the world’s poorest nations are squeezed by financial crisis, climate shocks and unfulfilled aid promises, all beyond their control.

Third, the G8 should focus urgent attention on the intensifying global hunger crisis. The UN estimates that the number of chronically hungry people has recently increased by around 150 million people, and that the world’s hungry now number one billion.

This shocking reversal of progress on food security is the result of many factors: climate shocks, crop failures and, of course, the global financial crisis itself. Scientists have sent the world’s leaders a powerful message: the poor and food-deficit regions can grow much more food if their smallholder farmers get the improved seeds, fertilisers, and irrigation they need to boost productivity. Food aid is vital in the midst of the current disaster; growing more food in Africa, particularly, is vital for next year and beyond.

Global co-operation was decisive in arresting last year’s financial meltdown. While the world’s economic situation remains difficult, the benefits of monetary and fiscal cooperation among the major economies is clear. We saw a similarly effective collective response to the H1N1 pandemic. Co-operation works, but we’ve only just gotten started.

Let us now bring the power of global partnership to bear on climate change, poverty reduction and food production. Let us begin an economic recovery that is not only robust, but also just, inclusive and sustainable – lifting the entire world. For if we do not do it now, at a moment of crisis, when will we?

Is there any point to the continued existence of G8? As this week’s summit looks increasingly irrelevant, should we care if the power shifts away to the G20?

President Lula of Brazil has declared that G8 “doesn’t have any reason to exist”. Next year’s hosts, Canada, are being urged by their own commentariat to turn their G8 into a G20. Meanwhile this year’s hosts, Italy, are trying to bring more countries into the G8 tent, to reduce the glaring gap between the two. In doing so, they are basically accepting the logic that it’s the wrong group of countries to have in the room to address the problems of the world.

Despite the attractions of inclusivity, I have fears that the transfer of power from G8 to G20 might prove more style than substance. G20 leaders need to show they are more willing than G8 have been to take actions that matter for the world’s poorest.

The G8′s scope seems to be narrowing, with substantive issues increasingly kept for the G20. The big question for the L’Aquila summit is who is keeping the promises they made at Gleneagles in 2005 (not Italy, despite Berlusconi being the only leader in this year’s crop who was actually there).

And in the meantime, the shiny new G20 is waiting in the wings. The second meeting of G20 leaders in September to discuss the global financial crisis will be presided over by the world’s favourite man, Barack Obama, and will quite likely be able to bask in the glory of success, if the tentative signs of recovery continue to be felt.

At the very least the current situation seems a little inefficient. Two summit dinners. Two rounds of official entertainment laid on for the long-suffering group of G8 spouses. Two huge logistical nightmares for the organising country. And all to pursue what is essentially one agenda of trying to unravel the mess of global governance and the outrage of global poverty by squaring the circle of what poor countries want and what rich countries are prepared to give up.

So why bother? Just read the last rites, declare the show over for the G8, and let the G20 take its rightful place as the photo opportunity of choice for world leaders.

Of course, there would be more competition for the prized spot on Obama’s righthand side in the group photocall. But think of the kudos, in these austerity-obsessed times, that G8 leaders could get by cutting out a whole swathe of expensive and increasingly pointless diplomacy – no more stories about what they had for dinner or how much the whole thing cost. Instead, a mature and sensible decision to give up their privileged and exclusive position for the good of global democracy.

That’s not quite the end of the matter. The G20 might be, numerically speaking, two and a half times as democratic as the G8, and many hopes for a better world are resting on that fact. But it’s still not exactly a bastion of democracy. The majority of the world’s countries are still out of the club. And having got in, many of the newly anointed global leaders don’t seem willing to widen the net further. Exclusivity can look pretty good from the inside.

From the point of view of the countries outside the room, the difference between the G8 and the G20 might seem a little academic. What they need is a group that will keep its promises. Whether on aid or on climate change or on tax havens, what the poorest countries need is for the richest countries – however they organise themselves – to make the right choices and then stick to them.

If the bigger size of the G20 means better decisions, because more different points of view are represented and, most crucially, because leaders are more likely to force one another to keep their promises, that’s when the shift from eight to 20 will start to make an actual difference to the world.

Basically, it’s about rich countries being persuaded to give up a bit more money and power for the greater good. Can China and Brazil, for example, force the US to cough up more than the paltry $1bn it recently announced to help the poorest countries cope with the impact of climate change? Would South Africa be any more successful than the UK in making Italy keep its promises on foreign aid? Will the combined weight of India, China, Brazil and South Africa be enough to force the US to give up its position as the world’s banker by backing a new reserve currency?

Unless the answer to any of these questions is yes, the supposed big shift in global power embodied in the new-look G20 will be more hype than hope.

Silvio Berlusconi was born in 1936, the same year that Hitler hosted the Summer Olympics. It would be fair to say that the bevy of women now talking of their steamy nights with the Italian leader probably don’t even remember Italia 90, let alone anything pre-Anschluss. And so the Commedia dell’Arte rumbles on, with Mr Berlusconi’s lawyer playing the unlicensed court fool.

All this could just be another seedy tale if it wasn’t for the fact that the Prime Minister of Italy not only leads this merry dance but is chairing next week’s G8 summit in L’Aquila.

Despite Mr Berlusconi’s position as longest-serving G8 leader, this old boys’ club of rich nations should surely be embarrassed that the Italian leader is playing host.

Not, of course, because France, Canada, the US, UK, Japan, Russia and Germany have taken a moral stance on the Italian leader’s entanglement in sleaze. No, for a more important reason still: the G8’s agenda has Africa and development firmly at its centre but Mr Berlusconi has failed to keep his aid promises. The billionaire tycoon has directed his national gaze inwards, causing Italy to shrink in international stature. His moral failings in the treatment of the world’s poor rather than his poolside parties mean that his place at the top table deserves to be threatened.

Four years ago in Gleneagles leaders promised to double their aid to Africa by $25 billion a year by 2010. Even before the financial crisis the Italian Government had shown little commitment, having increased its giving by just 3 per cent when a whopping 145 per cent is now needed to reach its aid target. And recently Italy announced its intention of making devastating cuts in its aid budget, blaming the financial crisis. It’s likely Italy will now be giving less aid than any other G7 country as a percentage of gross national income.

Italy’s obfuscatory tactic is a new initiative called the “whole of country” approach. This aims to bundle together not just what each government gives in aid, but what charities, individuals, companies and trade links contribute to the development pot. Italy even wants Vatican aid donations to be included as part of the new accounting.

The non-G8 nations Sweden, the Netherlands and Spain all give more aid than Italy, have a more progressive approach to other development issues and similar amounts of global influence. If we are to have a G8 with any credibility, either Italy should honour its aid promises or one of these forward-looking countries should slip into Mr Berlusconi’s warm seat?

It’s easy, what with the duck ponds, ministerial hissy fits, and media hysteria in the Westminster village, to see how events in Africa can slip under the political radar – events like a few million people dropping below the poverty line, surging child malnutrition, and parents struggling to keep their kids in school.

We are now just a few weeks from the G8 summit in Italy. With Africa on the brink of a major development reversal caused by global recession, it is vital that the summit acts decisively to support recovery. This is the most important meeting on African poverty since the Gleneagles summit four year ago. Yet it is heading for the rocks. Last week, G8 development ministers met to prepare the ground. After two days of deliberation, they emerged with a statement of such vacuous complacency that you could be forgiven for wondering if Africa’s poverty had escaped their attention.

G8 complacency is something the region can ill afford. On one estimate, the economic slowdown could cause an additional 700,000 infant deaths. The number of people in poverty is projected to rise by about 10 million this year, wiping out the fragile gains of the last eight years, and jeopardising gains in health and education.

The G8 summit in L’Aquila could help to change this picture. It needs to deliver what the G20 summit in London last March so conspicuously failed to do: namely, an early and large injection of aid without IMF strings attached.

The summit could start by acting on the Gleneagles promise to double aid by 2010. Some countries have held to that pledge. Since Gleneagles, Britain has increased aid to Africa by $1.1bn. It is now on course to become the first G8 country to hit the UN target of giving 0.7% of national income in aid. The decision to increase real spending on aid in the last budget round provided international leadership by example. Give credit where it’s due: Gordon Brown has a commitment to African poverty reduction hard-wired into his political DNA.

Unfortunately, other G8 leaders appear to see African poverty more as a political branding opportunity. After four years of doing nothing, Italy recently announced deep aid cuts. Silvio Berlusconi can now add indifference to suffering overseas to his accomplishments at home. Japan is also under-performing. More worryingly, there are signs that France, already lagging on its commitments, is set to cut aid to Africa.

Sub-Saharan Africa does not need new promises. What it needs is a commitment to provide the additional $14bn by 2010 to deliver on the old ones – and it needs the finance now. You don’t wait for child death rates to spiral and kids to drop out of school before acting. That’s why the Italy summit should agree to front-load financing plans for strengthening health systems. And it’s why the summit should deliver the long-overdue $1.2bn replenishment of an initiative – the Fast Track Initiative – to support universal primary education.

A rash of high-profile commentaries has asserted that development assistance is useless at best, and harmful to the poor at worst. The facts tell a different story. Before the downturn, strong economic growth was pushing poverty numbers down for the first time in three decades. In countries such as Mozambique and Ethiopia aid has supported health interventions that have cut child deaths by over 40%. In Tanzania, it has helped put another 3 million children in school. Meanwhile, the Global Fund to Fight Aids is delivering anti-retroviral drugs to 1.5 million pregnant women.

You try telling the mothers of African children now seizing the chance of an education that aid doesn’t work. Better still, try joining the campaigners mobilising to hold G8 leaders to account.

President Bush and other leaders of the Group of Eight pledged yesterday to try to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 50 percent by 2050. A key consideration in evaluating climate policies is the economic cost of cutting emissions. That cost could be reduced, perhaps by a lot, depending on two key questions about domestic climate policies: whether flexibility is provided when emissions are reduced and whether allowances to emit carbon are sold or given away.

The most common proposal for reducing carbon emissions involves a cap-and-trade program. Such programs provide flexibility regarding where and how firms reduce emissions. That’s a good start, but research suggests that businesses also need flexibility about when they reduce emissions if they are to minimize economic costs. Changes in climate reflect the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere over long periods; the impact depends little on year-to-year fluctuations in emissions. By contrast, the economic cost of reducing emissions can vary a lot from year to year — because of factors such as weather, economic activity or the state of technology. Flexibility regarding the timing of emissions reductions matters because of this disconnect between the environmental dynamic, which depends on total emissions reductions over an extended period, and the economic dynamic.

Timing flexibility could be delivered in many ways. Some cap-and-trade proposals allow permits for emitting carbon to be shifted across years. Yet these “banking and borrowing provisions” are typically limited. Alternatively, setting a floor and a ceiling on allowance prices each year could provide flexibility without sacrificing the ultimate goal. Setting a minimum auction price for allowances would encourage more emissions reductions when the costs were low. A price ceiling, implemented by selling additional allowances at that ceiling price, would mean fewer reductions when costs were high. Regulators could periodically adjust the price floor and ceiling to ensure that emissions reductions were on track for achieving a long-term target. A carbon tax also would provide timing flexibility.

A second way to reduce costs under a cap-and-trade program involves the method for initially distributing emissions allowances. The key questions here are whether some or all of the allowances will be sold by the government or given away — and, if they are sold, how the revenue will be used.

Cap-and-trade programs create a new commodity: the right to emit carbon. With a constraint on total emissions, allowances would suddenly be highly valuable — likely to be worth more than $100 billion per year. Selling them would provide revenue to offset some of the costs of the program. For example, revenue could be used to lower existing taxes that dampen economic activity. Following this path, the cost to the U.S. economy of a 15 percent cut in emissions might be half as large as it would be if the allowances were given away.

Another possible use of revenue from auctioning allowances is to offset the effects that higher energy prices would have on low- and moderate-income households. Although such price increases encourage greater efficiency in reducing emissions, and are thus essential to the success of a cap-and-trade program, they would impose a disproportionate burden on low- and moderate-income households. The Congressional Budget Office has found that if the allowances were sold and the revenue used to provide equal rebates to every household, lower-income households could be financially better off because the rebate would be larger than the average increase in their spending on energy-intensive goods. Alternatively, the distributional consequences could be offset by increasing the earned-income tax credit or boosting food stamp benefits.

By contrast, granting allowances free to emitters would not be well suited to reducing either the macroeconomic costs or the distributional effects of a cap-and-trade program. Businesses would raise energy prices for their customers regardless of whether the allowances were auctioned or given away. Indeed, providing free permits to energy producers and energy-intensive firms would be equivalent to auctioning the permits and simply giving the proceeds to the firms. The result would be a lost opportunity to use the money to offset the costs of emissions reductions as well as the potential creation of regressive “windfall profits” for the relatively high-income shareholders of those companies.

Given that climate change is a global problem, effective solutions will require care toward not only these domestic design issues but in coordinating efforts with other major emitters. Whereas timing flexibility and the use of revenue from allowance sales can be legislated, such coordination is difficult to legislate — but may be easier to negotiate the more credible the U.S. effort, which in turn depends on avoiding excessive domestic costs. Giving firms flexibility about when they reduce emissions and devoting the revenue from selling allowances to reducing either the macroeconomic costs or the distributional consequences would not make it free to reduce the risks associated with global climate change, but such strategies could reduce the domestic economic costs substantially.

The G8 summit, which opens today on Hokkaido, in Japan, conjures images of a political A&E ward on a Saturday night. President Bush, leader of the greatest nation on earth, is discredited and almost time-expired. Gordon Brown leads a government most of whose own members want him to disappear into a hole.

Silvio Berlusconi presides over a gangster culture that renders it impossible for Italy to present a serious face to the world. Nicolas Sarkozy should enjoy the prestige of a French president secure in office until 2012, but he has grievously injured his own power base by his first-year antics. Russia’s new president, Dmitry Medvedev, may well add up to nothing, in the absence of Vladimir Putin to tell him what to think.

All this matters, when the G8 is called upon to address the gravest issues of modern times. In some years, in advance of these gatherings, national sherpas are obliged to scrabble around exchanging emails, to identify a plausible agenda for their bosses. On Hokkaido, by contrast, they are debating shocking evidence on climate change, together with economic slowdown in the wake of soaring food and energy prices and world poverty.

These are daunting challenges, which most of the assembled leaders are ill-positioned to address. At G8s, unlike other international forums where big bureaucracies represent national interests, personalities matter. To get results the Japanese, as hosts, must exercise impressive powers of leadership. Instead, there are already signs that they will pursue their usual search for consensus, which means the triumph of a lowest common denominator.

G8 meetings can no longer carry conviction until China and India are granted full membership. There are also arguments for admitting representatives of other important global interests, for instance Brazil, South Africa, maybe an Islamic nation. The difficulty is that, if the group expands significantly, it will forfeit the intimacy which is hailed as its most important virtue. Chinese leaders are always uncomfortable in informal discussion, preferring to address carefully prepared scripts. Cynics observe that most of the communique for the Hokkaido meeting has already been drafted. The view of G8s as mere theatrical performances is liable to gain ground if the group expands.

Yet, whatever their limitations, it seems sorely mistaken to dismiss these summits as wastes of time and money. Globalisation both of problems and commerce is the dominant force of our times. It must therefore be useful, indeed indispensable, for national leaders to make human contact with each other. Bilateral conversations, even hampered by the necessity for interpreters, possess significant value.

The most notorious G8 of recent times was that held at Gleneagles in 2005. Not only was the occasion overshadowed for the hosts by the horror of the London bombings, but extravagant promises were made to attack world poverty. These won acclaim for Tony Blair, who was perceived as having responded to the appeals of Sir Bob Geldof with energy and success.

Unfortunately, of course, much of the pledged cash has never been delivered. It was the G8′s Alberto Vilar moment. Vilar, you may remember, was a tycoon who promised huge sums to good causes, including the Royal Opera House, but who failed in the end to make good on those pledges.

Last weekend I put the Vilar point to a Gleneagles veteran, a diplomat. He responded that he thought cynicism misplaced, about both G8s in general and the Scottish one in particular. It was an important achievement to set targets, he said, even if they are still unmet. As a result of the 2005 agreement, more money for poor countries has been forthcoming. A fortnight ago, the Japanese significantly increased their international aid commitment. They were moved to act explicitly because, as Hokkaido hosts, they needed to be seen to display generosity.

Unfortunately for the developing world, and for Africa in particular, most G8 members this week will be more interested in the plight of their own societies than of anybody else’s. Lip service will be paid to good causes. But the overwhelming preoccupation of leaders will be the impact of rising food and energy costs upon the world’s biggest economies.

Tensions will soon become apparent, between the perils posed by climate change and the clamour for relief from threatened living standards. Democracies being what they are, the latter force is likely to gain priority. The power of green lobbies will diminish in the lean years ahead, just as in supermarkets cheap food is likely to gain ground against expensive organic products.

Any political party in the west that wants to get itself elected will have to offer an electorate prospects of secure energy sources and stable food prices, even if both carry additional environmental risks and costs. We are likely to hear much more about both nuclear power and GM crops. Most of the G8 leaders know this. The more extravagant the green rhetoric that emerges, the less likelihood there is that its authors will mean what they say. Idealism shrinks in times of economic stress.

No doubt the summit will spare some unkind private words for Robert Mugabe, especially as South Africa’s president Thabo Mbeki is calling in on Hokkaido. But in the case of Zimbabwe, also, breadbasket issues at home make national leaders less interested in addressing moral ones abroad.

The American guru Richard Haass wrote recently in Foreign Affairs journal that rather than a multi-polar world, we are moving into a non-polar one. It is becoming progressively difficult to mobilise an international quorum in support of any objective, however worthy and important. This reflects not only the US’s loss of moral authority, but also a dilution of power in consequence of globalism, which makes it ever harder for any nation to forge a consensus in support of decisive action.

This works to the advantage of tyrants and mischief-makers. The EU, for instance, should be presenting a united front to prevent the Russians from using their newfound energy clout to blackmail individual nations. Instead, much to the delight of the Kremlin, each EU member state is scrabbling to extract the best bilateral deal it can get from Moscow. The UN security council shows itself increasingly weak and more anachronistic. Nato is atrophying. The IMF and World Bank face growing sceptical scrutiny.

Capitalist societies found life much less complicated in the cold war era, when it was perceived as essential to follow strong US leadership amid the threat from the Soviet Union. Those days have gone. If the world’s major powers are henceforward to get anything done, it must be through the concerted efforts of members of such bodies as the G8. Today, unfortunately, most still prefer to hang separately than together. Our global predicament may have to get a good deal worse before they acknowledge that common action against shared perils must transcend the familiar, disastrously outdated pursuit of national interests.

The past decade has been little short of amazing. Storms that might once have driven the world on to the rocks of recession – the Asian and Russian financial meltdowns, 9/11 and the grim and costly business of confronting Islamist terrorism, not to mention a slew of exceptionally destructive natural disasters – have been weathered with surprising ease.

The grim predictions as the last century ended were that an open, increasingly globalised and technology-driven world economy would condemn Western workers to “a race to the bottom”, in a fruitless struggle to compete with China and other low-cost producers. Instead, the rising Asian tide lifted all boats, even some rickety African ones, boosting job prospects and average incomes in almost every corner of the globe.

In Europe and the United States, cheap Chinese goods not only tamped down inflation and kept the lid on interest rates, but turned things like mobile phones, laptops and microwaves from luxuries into widely affordable purchases. Mass anti-globalisation rallies dwindled into fringe protests, as people got used to the idea that, for most families, life in the global economy was actually pretty comfortable. Political leaders naturally took the credit, ascribing this benign state of affairs to their prudent economic stewardship. Until last year: abruptly, and to most people inexplicably, the boom they had begun to take for granted gave way to something that feels horribly and expensively like bust – and, equally abruptly, these same leaders rushed to blame “factors beyond our control”.

It’s hardly surprising that their credit ratings have plunged as fast as the value of sub-prime mortgages. If they were right then, how did they not spot that nutters were taking over the boardrooms until the credit crunch materialised right under their vigilant noses? And if they are right now – and it is fairly obvious that there is little in the short term that Gordon Brown or Nicolas Sarkozy or even George Bush can do about sky-rocketing oil and food prices – then why did they not give voters earlier warning about the strains that soaring Chinese demand for oil and other commodities would impose?

Voters are angry as well as confused; because no one shouted “Brace! Brace!”, they thought they were cruising safely on autopilot. Little more than a year ago, Hampstead’s well-heeled middle classes were genteelly fretting about whether they ought to do their bit for the planet by giving up the odd flight to the sun. Now they are swapping horror stories about petrol, the price of skinless chicken fillets and the latest wave of redundancies. The not-so-well-heeled are buying less, and beginning to demand the “inflation-beating” pay rises that have stoked inflation in the past.

It is frightening how quickly support for open economies can evaporate in tough times, even in the comparatively cushioned West – and even when, it should be noted, very few industrialised countries, and not one emerging economy, are actually in or close to recession.

A confused and anxious sense that nothing holds together, as only a short time ago it seemed to do, has a lot to do with the buzz created on both sides of the Atlantic by Barack Obama’s vacuous “yes we can” mantra – and also, ominously, with the appeal of his irresponsible and wholly inaccurate tirades against free trade and heartless corporations who put their balance sheets before the protection of “American jobs”.

The enemies of globalisation are regrouping, and no one expects the G8 summit opening today in Japan’s northern island of Hokkaido to mount a convincing counter-attack. Too many of the assembled politicians look past their sell-by date, for a start. Of the G8′s three most stalwart champions of free trade, George Bush and Gordon Brown have the support of no more than a quarter of their fellow countrymen, while Angela Merkel’s governing coalition is ripping itself to shreds. Nicolas Sarkozy owes most of what is left of his vanishing popularity to his protectionist defence of France’s “national champion” industries and its pampered farmers. Silvio Berlusconi carries little weight and Dmitri Medvedev is, at best, an unknown quantity.

The club itself is a bit musty, too. The decision to invite China, India, Brazil, Mexico and (out of political correctness) South Africa to a special session of the “major economies” tacitly acknowledges that the G8, whose members account for well under half of global growth these days, can no longer claim to be the undisputed lynchpin of the world economy.

Thus runs the conventional wisdom. But there are things that the G8 – with the newcomers – could do. Think back for a moment to those Hampstead kitchens. For the past several years, G8 summits have become political showcases for polite but circular debates on global warming, and for worthy unfulfilled pledges of massive additional aid to Africa in return for worthy unfulfilled African pledges of commitment to democracy and decent government. Fine and dandy when the going was easy, but not good enough now. Even in Hampstead, soaring oil prices are concentrating minds on the connections between climate change policies, energy security and the health of the global economy. Isolating climate change in its own neat little renewable green box makes about as much sense as tilting at windmills.

This G8, like others before it, will brood over targets for cutting carbon emissions. But cutting emissions is scientifically pointless without the participation of China, India and Brazil, and, even with them on board, will exert a considerable drag on growth on the basis of existing technologies. Cutting a single ton of CO2 costs about ten times the estimated damage of its release into the atmosphere. Unless the gap between those two figures is dramatically reduced, a low-carbon world will be achieved only slowly, and only at considerable cost to voters already exercised by falling standards of living and increased economic uncertainty.

The answer is massive concerted investment in revolutionary low-carbon technologies. When President Bush committed $2 billion to a new international clean energy fund last January, Europeans sniffed that this was just a diversionary tactic. With oil prices 50 per cent up since January and still climbing, the idea looks anything but irrelevant. The sober political truth is that many more people will buy into energy security as a goal than will put saving the planet ahead of their personal wellbeing – and that emphatically goes for energy-short China as much as for the rest of us. Information technology and free trade drove the first phase of globalisation. Energy technology, already a growth industry, could be the engine of the second phase – and puff the sails of free trade into the bargain. If the G8 plays the energy card right, the next decade could be as amazing as the last.

John McCain would kick Russia out of the Group of Eight economic powers that meet in Japan this week. But this is no time to think small. The G-8 leaders themselves should declare surrender and disband their high-profile huddle on the state of the world.

Think of it as global shock therapy: Using the July 7-9 summit on Hokkaido Island to abandon the bloated, unwieldy G-8 format would be a first step toward acknowledging and rethinking — at the highest level — these important international realities:

· The world that these leaders and their predecessors have promised for the past three decades is not today’s world of energy and food-price shocks, global financial irresponsibility, menacing climate change, and terrorist networks seeking weapons of mass destruction. The G-8 leaders — most of them disdained by their publics in these hard times — have failed, and they should accept responsibility.

· The illusion of control that they seek to impose through this summit has become self-defeating. Increasingly it appears to people in nation after nation that no one is in control of events and institutions at the global level. Asserting otherwise without providing tangible relief simply increases popular cynicism and anger.

“This is a crisis in legitimacy and world leadership,” a senior French official told me a few weeks ago in Paris. When I countered that the world had similarly undergone a lengthy period of anxiety and uncertainly in the 1970s and recovered, he responded:

“The problems then were the problems of the rich, who worried about their oil supplies and financial imbalances. Because of globalization, today everything is connected and hits everyone at the same moment. Price surges in oil and food, which are connected, exacerbate the subprime financial mess. Iran uses its oil revenue to pursue a nuclear weapon and to direct revolutionary warfare in Lebanon and Gaza. Governments are overwhelmed.”

Even so, my Swiftian proposal to blow up the G-8 and start over will find no favor with Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda, the summit host. Hoping to buy time to improve his political fortunes at home, he wants to persuade Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Russia and the United States to accept a new climate-change agreement with a Japanese imprimatur.

The prime minister also told me in Tokyo in May that he wants the summit to act to stem “the precipitous rise in commodity prices . . . which today do not reflect the real world economy” because they involve far too much “financial speculation.” But he offered no specific remedies.

From Fukuda’s standpoint, the summit’s most important moment could be its closing “outreach” session when the eight meet with China and other invited developing countries to discuss economic growth and global warming. Fukuda will spotlight this gathering as a step in what he calls “the internationalization of China” and Japan’s guiding role in that process. Getting China and India to sign up to cut carbon emissions might also spur Japanese exports of energy-efficient technology.

The self-interest of host nations and their penchant to outshine each other is enough to keep this bunch in business. I can claim no headway with Italy, the next G-8 host nation, either. Foreign Minister Franco Frattini proudly told me in Venice last month that Italy has already added Egypt to the list of core “outreach” countries for next year’s gathering.

The G-8 long ago proved that bigger is not always better. The intimate gathering of just six leaders that French President Valéry Giscard d’Estaing convoked in 1975 has been transmogrified into a giant public relations exercise with little real point. And the admission of Russia in 1998 — despite its lack of qualifications as an established democratic industrial power — further diluted the process.

Predictable suggestions that this body be expanded to a G-13 or a G-20 go in the absolute wrong direction. More expansion will destroy any opportunity for informal, effective consultation by world leaders. They will be talking for the press releases, not for each other. Such proposals should be put forward only as cover for a more sensible proposition: The United States, the European Union and Japan should quietly form a G-3 that would operate in the shadows of the much larger talk shop. A G-3 would get back to Giscard’s original idea.

It would get McCain off the hook of his unworkable idea to exclude just Russia. And it would get us back to the wisdom of less being more, an idea that sadly went out of vogue in the we-can-have-it-all euphoria of globalization.

Global growth is the leitmotif of our era. The great economic expansion, now in its fifth decade, has raised living standards worldwide and lifted billions out of poverty.

Yet today, many wonder how long it can last. The reason: Plenty comes at an increasingly high price. We see it daily in the rising cost of fuel, food and commodities. Consumers in developed countries fear the return of “stagflation” — inflation coupled with slowing growth or outright recession — while the world’s poorest no longer can afford to eat.

Meanwhile, climate change and environmental degradation threaten the future of our planet. Population growth and rising wealth place unprecedented stress on the Earth’s resources. Malthus is back in vogue. Everything seems suddenly in short supply: energy, clean air and fresh water, all that nourishes us and supports our modern ways of life.

As the leaders of the Group of Eight gather here, we know that these issues affect us all: north and south, large nations and small, rich and poor. And we know we must find ways to extend the benefits of the global boom to those who have been left behind, the so-called “bottom billion.” In dealing with problems of such dimension and complexity, there is only one possible approach: to see them for what they are — as parts of a whole requiring a comprehensive solution.

A big part of that solution should be a “global supply-side response,” as some economists put it, grounded in sustainable development — nations, international financial organizations, the United Nations and its various agencies working as one.

Begin with the global food crisis. It has many causes, among them a failure to give agricultural development the importance it deserves. What’s needed, in effect, is a “green revolution” of the sort that once transformed Southeast Asia, this time with a focus on small farmers in Africa. With the right mix of programs, there is no reason productivity cannot be doubled within a relatively short span, easing scarcity worldwide. We’ve seen it happen in Malawi, which, with international assistance, has shifted within a few years from being a country plagued by famine to one that exports food.

In Hokkaido, I will call on G-8 nations to triple official assistance for agricultural research and development over the next three to five years. We must act immediately to get seeds, fertilizers and other agricultural “inputs” to farmers in vulnerable countries in time for the coming harvests. We must encourage nations to eliminate the export restrictions that many placed on foodstuffs this spring, as well as the more long-standing subsidies that many developed nations provide their farmers. Such artificial barriers distort trade patterns and drive up prices, deepening the immediate crisis and jeopardizing global growth.

With climate change, as well, sustainable development figures large in the solution. Most experts agree that we are nearing the end of cheap energy. Alternative technologies are among our best hopes for cleaner, affordable power. Here, too, a new “green revolution” is underway. The United Nations Environment Program has found that $148 billion in new funding went into sustainable energy last year, up 60 percent from 2006 and accounting for 23 percent of new power-generating capacity.

Our job, as national and international leaders, is to assist in guiding and hastening this nascent economic transformation. We need to change social behavior and consumption patterns throughout the developed world. And we must help developing countries “green” their economies by spreading climate-friendly technologies as broadly as possible.

We can take a big step forward in Hokkaido. Mindful of our responsibilities to the poorest nations most vulnerable to climate change, we must fully fund the global Adaptation Fund and make it operational. Looking forward to the December climate change summit in Poznan — and to Copenhagen in 2009 — we must push ahead with negotiations for a comprehensive agreement limiting greenhouse gases. Above all, we need to inject a sense of urgency and real leadership into this quest. It is not enough to set goals for 2050, far down the road. We need a middle-term timeline to 2020 if we are serious about promoting change now.

Lastly, Hokkaido will test our commitment to the Millennium Development Goals. For Africa alone, donors have pledged $62 billion a year by 2010. Those in need have faces: mothers who die needlessly in childbirth, infants stunted through life because they do not receive adequate nutrition during their first two years. We promised this assistance. Now is the time to provide it.

Never in recent memory has the global economy been under such stress. More than ever, this is the moment to prove that we can cooperate globally to deliver results: in meeting the needs of the hungry and the poor, in promoting sustainable energy technologies for all, in saving the world from climate change — and in keeping the global economy growing.

These are the ties that bind us. We must act, in Hokkaido and beyond — not merely because it is the right thing to do but also because it is in the enlightened interest of all of us.

Wherever you turn in Davos, you see the World Economic Forum’s modest motto: “Committed to improving the state of the world.” Well, it needs it. So here’s one practical step: the G8 should be expanded to G14, adding China, India, Brazil, Mexico, South Africa and Indonesia. Arbitrary? To be sure. Tactless? You bet. Deeply offensive to some important countries not on that list? Obviously – and they will cry havoc, foul and blue murder. But sometimes, if you’re committed to improving the state of the world, you have to be a little brutal.

The dangers of climate change, nuclear proliferation, disease and poverty – not to mention the fragile state of globalised capitalism – demand a more credible and representative cast at the annual intergovernmental summit. As Asia rises, it is ever more absurd that the world’s unofficial top table has a seat for Italy but not for China. The current lineup at the world’s official top table, the UN security council, is not very satisfactory either, but it’s also more difficult to change. The G8, by contrast, is a club that can simply decide to invite new members to join. That’s how the G7 came to add Russia in the 1990s. No UN general assembly debate or ratification procedure is required. In principle, there’s no reason why this decision could not be taken at the next annual summit, this summer in Japan. Like Nike, the G8 can just do it.

One objection to expanding the group is that it will lose intimacy, or “collegiality”. But the fireside chats of the original “library group” of the early 1970s are already a thing of the distant past. Today’s G8 summits are massive intergovernmental events, their every artful informality planned like a military operation. I’m told the American delegation to the last one, in Germany, had some 800 people. The qualitative difference between a lunchtime conversation of eight leaders and of 14 is not so great. The key deals will be made in smaller side-conversations anyway. The gain in representativeness, and therefore the global reach of commitments made on issues such as climate change, trade and aid, will more than compensate for the loss of pretended intimacy.

Another objection, a variant on the “collegiality” theme, is that the G8 has been a community of values. Expand it too far and you dilute the lifeblood of common values. But this has already happened with the admission of Russia. It’s ridiculous to suggest that Vladimir Putin has more values in common with Gordon Brown than does Manmohan Singh, the prime minister of the world’s largest democracy. If one wanted to keep this as a club of the world’s leading liberal democracies, one should expel Russia and admit India in its place.

I have in the past been tempted by that idea; but it’s not going to happen, and probably it shouldn’t. The indispensable shared values therefore have to be rather minimal. Shall we say: committed to ensuring a future for humankind on this planet; a reasonable stability of the world economic system; and as much human dignity for as many human beings as the self-interested policies of states and the selfishness of voters will allow? To those minimal goals, even Putin’s Russia can commit. And undemocratic China, too.

Apart from those two currently undemocratic giants, which themselves can evolve positively as well as negatively, the proposed expansion does not drastically reduce the domestic freedom base. It makes the club less western, but not necessarily less democratic. India, Brazil, South Africa and Mexico are all not merely electoral democracies but classified by Freedom House as free countries. And note that I propose as the major Islamic country for inclusion not Egypt or Saudi Arabia but Indonesia. Indonesia is both the world’s largest Muslim country and a democracy, albeit of a ramshackle and imperfect kind.

So we have a rough and ready mix of criteria for membership: power and importance, above all, but also some degree of effective and answerable government (less in some cases, more in others), and some crude element of regional representativeness. Although there are more than 190 states in the world, these 14 states between them account for three-fifths of the world’s population, more than two-thirds of its GDP, nearly three-quarters of its carbon dioxide emissions, and more than 80% of its defence expenditure. The regional tally would still reflect the heritage of western dominance, but it would now count Europe: 4 (plus European Union representatives in attendance), North America: 3, East Asia: 2, Latin America: 1, Africa: 1, Eurasia: 1, South Asia: 1 and South-East Asia: 1. An improvement, at least, on the current mix.

Some say you don’t need to be so brutal. You could leave the current G8 as it is, or just add China and India but beef up the so-called G20 group of finance ministers, perhaps renaming it L20, to avoid total confusion and to reflect its enhanced role. (The L20 idea was originally pushed by the former Canadian prime minister, Paul Martin.) But this seems to me a fudge too far.

Others suggest you need different groupings for each issue, perhaps a C15 for climate change, a D23 for development, an E19 for energy security, and so on, all the way through to the Z99 for zoological diversity. In which case, our leaders would spend all their time attending international meetings, leaving no time left to run their countries. That would not improve the state of the world. Of course, other states need to be involved according to subject, but the fewer core groupings, the better.

While the process of UN reform grinds on, this reformed group of the world’s most powerful and important countries (power and importance being not quite the same thing) should propose collective actions on climate change, world trade, development, energy security, HIV/Aids and Africa – to take a shortlist from Germany’s G8 summit last year. It makes no sense at all to tackle an issue like climate change without the world’s largest growing carbon emitters, China and India, at the table – which is why leaders of five of my six proposed new members were invited to attend part of that meeting, as the so-called “outreach five”. So why not make it official?

Scepticism is plainly in order about what such meetings achieve, beyond declarations and promises. At the very least, the world’s emerging great powers would have to think about, and take positions on, matters of wider responsibility which they might not otherwise confront. And the world’s waning great powers could get used to listening to what the waxing ones have to say, and perhaps influence them too, before it is too late. Moreover, countries do actually make commitments at these summits. The independent G8 Research Group, based at the University of Toronto, monitors compliance on these commitments and produces league tables that show up the laggards. Embarrassment is worth something.

A G14 would be nothing like a world government. With time and luck, it might evolve into something that could be called, by very loose analogy with the 19th-century “Concert of Europe”, a concert of world powers. Not a substitute for a reformed UN, but an essential complement to it. But which of today’s G8 leaders will take up the challenge?

La cumbre del G-8 que se reunió la semana pasada en la localidad alemana de Heiligendamm ha arrojado ciertos resultados, al menos moderados. De todas formas, ¿no es lo acostumbrado en estos casos? Prevista al inicio como una consulta informal entre jefes de Estado, las reuniones de los representantes del G-8 se han convertido en pesadas y aburridas cumbres diplomáticas anuales. Abordan las cuestiones más variadas y se preparan minuciosamente con meses de antelación. Congregan a miles de personas, ya se trate de jefes de Estado o de Gobierno con sus correspondientes séquitos de asesores y colaboradores sin olvidar a los miles de periodistas y manifestantes que acuden invariablemente a la cita. En suma, el carácter informal del encuentro se ha evaporado.

Todo responde, por el contrario, a un ritual ajustado y bien engrasado.

Antes de la cumbre, cada uno de sus protagonistas eleva su puja al máximo y la reunión concluye con diversos acuerdos a modo de trampantojo sobre un fondo de manifestaciones de activistas radicales. Un escenario que se repite cada año.

Algunos reprochan al G-8 su afán por convertirse en una especie de directorio mundial carente de la legitimidad de la ONU. De acuerdo con esta perspectiva, los países ricos se reunirían a fin de consolidar sus privilegios y conservar las condiciones y elementos propios de su dominio mundial. Otros, por el contrario, le acusan de ineficacia, añadiendo que tales reuniones adoptan escasas decisiones genuinas. Es decir, se emiten declaraciones exclusivamente verbales que apenas resultan en una verdadera puesta en práctica.

Este año, las circunstancias que han rodeado a la cita han mostrado tal vez tintes algo más dramáticos. En respuesta al sistema antimisiles estadounidense, Putin había amenazado con apuntar nuevamente sus armas nucleares contra Europa. Algunos no dudaban en referirse a un retorno de la guerra fría. Sin embargo, tal comparación carece de base. Si bien cabe apreciar un endurecimiento del tono de Moscú no por ello puede hablarse de un retorno a la guerra fría pues las circunstancias históricas han variado radicalmente. Ya no estamos en un sistema bipolar en el que cada parte desea la desaparición de la otra. Moscú ya no encabeza una coalición mundial con anclaje militar en todos los continentes y en práctico pie de igualdad con Washington. Lo que ocurre, sencillamente, es que Rusia quiere hacerse respetar y Putin quiere mostrar al pueblo ruso que el periodo en que Rusia era poco menos que material desechable en la escena internacional ha dado fin. Rusia está de regreso – y con bríos, por cierto- en la escena internacional. Quiero decir que las rivalidades entre Moscú y Washington son rivalidades nacionales clásicas y no una rivalidad entre dos sistema antagonistas. EE. UU. deseaba, a propósito del escudo antimisiles, aislar a Rusia. Sin embargo, no se ha visto secundado a este respecto por parte de Alemania y Francia, preocupadas por una nueva carrera de armamentos. Y Putin, por su parte, ha propuesto hábilmente instalar las bases del escudo antimisiles en Azerbaiyán. Tampoco se trata de echar las campanas a vuelo y considerar de inmediato que todo está resuelto. Volverá a asomar la manzana de la discordia dado que de hecho no hay nada acordado.

Antes de ser elegidos, Angela Merkel y Nicolas Sarkozy habían manifestado clara e inequívocamente su voluntad de tomar sus distancias respecto de Rusia – acusaban a sus predecesores respectivos de haberse aproximado demasiado- y acercarse a EE. UU. La cuestión de la lucha contra el calentamiento climático, sobre todo, les ha puesto palos en las ruedas en el intento. Antes de esta última cumbre, George W. Bush decía que no quería ni oír hablar del tema mientras que París y Berlín querían reducir las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero en un 50% entre el momento actual y el año 2050. Lo cierto es que se ha adoptado una declaración no vinculante. Se presenta como un éxito, pero la verdad es que Bush no se ha comprometido a nada. Se ha limitado a decir que EE. UU. tomaría seriamente en consideración la necesidad de combatir el calentamiento climático. Desde el mismo momento en que los jefes de Estado y de Gobierno se dan cita, consta innegablemente el deber si no de salir con éxito del empeño a la hora de la despedida, al menos de aparentarlo. Del mismo modo, y a propósito de la cuestión de Kosovo, las posturas siguen siendo contradictorias entre EE. UU. que desea la independencia, Alemania que se resigna a ello y Rusia que la rechaza. No se ha avanzado ni un centímetro en esta cuestión. Y similar decepción se detecta entre las ONG de ayuda al desarrollo que consideran que al sur en general – y a África en particular- no les ha restado a fin de cuentas sino la renovación de promesas ya hechas.

Pese a cuanto antecede, se han guardado las apariencias y la cumbre ha podido finalizar con una hermosa foto de familia. Una foto que cuesta cien millones de euros, dirán los contrarios al G-8. Ala vista de la falta de resultados concretos, es caro. No obstante, resulta soportable en comparación con lo que costaría en caso de ausencia de contactos entre las grandes potencias porque siempre es preferible que las grandes potencias mantengan contactos entre sí.

Tampoco cabe esperar milagros. Los jefes de Estado y de Gobierno enseñan sus cartas y permiten que las ONG y la opinión pública ejerzan cierto grado de presión sobre ellas. El G-8, tal vez, es decepcionante. Aunque también es verdad que su supresión no solucionaría en nada la situación.

Post-G8 report cards are for the most part judging that the emphasis in Germany last week was on climate change, with the fight against poverty in Africa and the developing world taking a back seat. In truth, however, the two are so closely intertwined that they cannot be considered separately. Just as skewed global trade and political systems stack the deck against developing countries struggling to escape the poverty trap, it also limits their scope for effective action on climate change.

Progressive efforts to tackle climate change in Africa and the developing world are almost invariably hamstrung by global political, trade and finance rules and realities. Attempts to crack down on energy leakage are too often stymied simply because the mostly international corporations affected can threaten to pack up and move. Poor countries are desperately dependent on investments and jobs from these western companies.

Many developing countries have high levels of carbon emissions because they use so-called dirty fuel such as coal to generate the bulk of their energy. These countries worry about the cost of rapidly turning to sustainable energy, when they have massive social obligations to their poor citizens. More than 25% of households in South Africa, for example, do not have access to affordable energy, let alone clean energy.

The conversion from dirty to clean fuel is expensive. And here there is a telling echo of struggles for antiviral drugs in Africa: countries pursuing new technology to produce cleaner energy affordably often face battles with western companies and governments over intellectual property rights issues.

The people of Africa and the developing world understandably worry that they will find themselves left bearing the brunt of climate change, just as they have regarding health issues. The latest reports from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have identified Africa as the continent likely be hardest hit by climate change, thanks to plummeting food production and water shortages. And yet the industrialised countries are disproportionately responsible for global warming. The big developing countries – China, India and Brazil – are not blameless, but the western track record is hardly an example to follow.

After the G8 meeting, many welcomed the news that the United States had agreed that a future deal on the environment would be cobbled together under the auspices of the United Nations. However, the UN is viewed by many in Africa with distrust, especially following its apparent manipulation by the US and “coalition of the willing” in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq. There is little confidence that a fair deal will be agreed. At the UN-sponsored Africa climate change event in Kenya last year, Africans were watching powerlessly from the margins, as they were excluded from discussions that concerned them most.

If the G8 is serious about climate change in Africa and the developing world, one proposal is to refocus the World Bank to help poor nations overcome the cost of shifting to clean energy. Only the G8 nations have the power to achieve that.

It is no wonder that the large developing countries are suspicious of western attempts so far to persuade them to opt for a greener, and more costly, option to catch up with the west. Indeed, some developing countries perceive the clamour over climate change as an attempt by the west to dominate the world’s depleting energy sources. Others, such as China, India and Brazil, suspect an ulterior motive on the part of a western world anxious about their high growth rates. These positions may be wrong, but they are certainly understandable.

Global warming has a disproportionate impact on poor countries, but it is, almost by definition, a pressing issue everywhere and for everyone. It cannot, however, be tackled in isolation, divorced from the other problems facing Africa and the developing world. Rich nations would be foolish to imagine that the fight against poverty can be postponed in favour of a focus on climate change. The solution to both demands an equitable partnership in decision-making and restoration of trust between the west and the developing world, and that must begin with genuine efforts to change the inequitable global trade, political and financial systems.

¿Han ofrecido alguna vez una fiesta que se haya echado a perder lastimosamente por culpa de un necio invitado? Siete viejos amigos se reúnen para cenar, pero para completar el grupo se añade otro comensal a la lista de invitados. Los siete amigos se disponen a pasar una tranquila velada charlando sobre cuestiones de interés común (precios de la vivienda, recibos del colegio de los niños…). Pero he aquí que, para horror de los presentes, al nuevo invitado – a instancia, tal vez, de su sensación de inseguridad- le da por provocar una desagradable discusión quejándose de que sus vecinos han instalado en su ordenador un cortafuegos inalámbrico de modo que han bloqueado su acceso a pornografía en la red.

¡Pobre Angela Merkel cuando invirtió sus mayores esfuerzos en ser la mejor de las anfitrionas en la cumbre del G-8 en Alemania la semana pasada! Los temas básicos de la conversación, ciertamente, apenas podían ser más respetables y dignos de atención (la pobreza en África, el cambio climático). Se figuraba que su único problema provendría en todo caso de una turba contratada por los manifestantes antiglobalización. Merkel, siendo como es de procedencia germanoriental, solucionó este problema construyendo una gran valla en torno al lugar de la reunión. El problema fue que uno de sus huéspedes trató de estropear la fiesta poniendo sobre la mesa el espinoso, molesto e incómodo tema de los misiles nucleares. Por lo visto sus vecinos están preparando un cortafuegos que bloquearía su capacidad para lanzarlos contra Estados Unidos.

Para ser justos con el presidente ruso, Vladimir Putin, entiendo por qué no le agrada demasiado la idea de la instalación de misiles defensivos estadounidenses en Polonia y Chequia, que tanto él como sus amigos del KGB solían tratar como una posesión imperial soviética. Resulta difícil creer que tales instalaciones no estén destinadas – al menos en parte- a neutralizar una posible amenaza nuclear procedente de Rusia, que aún sigue siendo la otra superpotencia nuclear mundial además de Estados Unidos. Para Putin – aunque en ello se quede solo- el cálculo de la antigua guerra fría sigue aún vigente: un sistema de misiles antibalísticos eficaz invalida y anula el equilibrio basado en el terror nuclear al dar paso a la posibilidad, en teoría, de un primer ataque de Estados Unidos contra Rusia sin correr el riesgo de una masiva represalia rusa. De modo que, en lugar de una destrucción mutua asegurada (mutually assured destruction,MAD), cabe conseguir una posible destrucción de Moscú (Moscow´s posible destruction).

Puntuación máxima para Vladimir Putin por su sagaz contrapropuesta a favor de una estación conjunta de seguimiento de misiles en la ex república soviética de Azerbaiyán. Porque si, como insisten los estadounidenses, es Irán y no Rusia el motivo de preocupación, ¿cómo rechazarla? Aunque, téngalo presente, señor Putin: su mala catadura en la esfera pública y social sigue siendo inequívoca.

En cambio, su homólogo estadounidense, el presidente Bush, se comporta. Antes de la cumbre del G-8, se creía que sería Bush el aguafiestas. Sin embargo, y para sorpresa de todos, el tejano tóxico se lanzó a una declaración según la cual el G-8 se compromete a actuar “pronta y enérgicamente” para reducir las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero. Ha señalado incluso que el protocolo de Kioto, que se había negado a firmar, debería ser sustituido por un nuevo acuerdo antes de que éste expire en el 2012. Además, ha prometido “considerar seriamente” el objetivo europeo de un 50% de reducción de emisiones de CO para el 2 2050. ¡Pues vale! Bush considerará seriamente este objetivo durante aproximadamente diez segundos antes de apartar tal pensamiento de su mente, porque la fecha tope del acuerdo sucesor de Kioto es el año 2009, el año por cierto en que el sucesor de Bush accederá a la Casa Blanca.

De todas formas, la señora Merkel es digna de elogio y alabanza. Una cumbre que amenazaba con acabar con acritud ha generado buen número de páginas de la insulsa prosa diplomática de rigor. Hubo tiempo incluso para una declaración sobre el Crecimiento y responsabilidad en África. De alguna manera, la cena con invitados se ha salvado, pese al ordinario y vulgar mal comportamiento del nuevo vecino.

La cuestión ahora planteada es la de por cuánto tiempo habremos de soportar estos ridículos y extravagantes encuentros. Y así los califico no sólo por el gasto que comportan o por las aburridas chorradas que he de leerme cada vez que se reúnen los líderes del G-8, sino porque la misma noción de un grupo de ocho “principales países industrializados” se está convirtiendo en un anacronismo a marchas forzadas.

Si nos remontamos a 1975, por supuesto sólo siete países se hallaban representados en la mesa principal: Canadá, Francia, Alemania, Italia, Japón, Gran Bretaña y Estados Unidos. Tenía un cierto sentido cuando estos siete países representaban alrededor de un 62% de la producción mundial, pero ahora esta cifra sólo es un 57%. Y, si damos crédito a las proyecciones del economista Jim O´Neill y sus colegas, de Goldman Sachs, el guarismo en cuestión caerá en picado en los próximos decenios: a un 36% en el 2025 y a un exiguo 20% en el 2050. Como se recordará, para este último año la canciller Merkel calcula haber reducido las emisiones de CO2 un 50%.

Más vale ser realista. Los de Goldman Sachs figuran los segundos en el ranking mundial de sabuesos en su especialidad y, aunque pueden equivocarse, son de lo mejorcito. El razonamiento de O´Neill es que la G del G-7 remite en este caso a una especie de subasta: “¡A la una, a las dos, adjudicados!” (going, going, gone!)o tal vez a personas envejecidas y canosas (graying)dado su ritmo de envejecimiento…

El futuro, desde su punto de vista, se asocia a las economías BRIC: Brasil, Rusia, India y China (o grandes países en vías de industralización, si se prefiere). Actualmente, representan el 9% de la producción mundial, que podría aumentar al 19% para el 2025 y al 28% para el 2050, más que lo proyectado en el caso del G-7.

Añádase a ello los N-11 (next eleven),los 11 países de economía prometedora como les llamó O´Neill, y verán cómo se inclina la balanza económica mundial… Para el 2050, los BRIC y los N-11 juntos representarán el 39% de la economía mundial. ¿Cree alguien seriamente que estos países van a reducir sus emisiones de CO2  para entonces? La cuestión estriba en que aunque mejoren en eficiencia energética, los pronósticos actuales indican que sus tasas de crecimiento provocarán más emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero. ¿Qué les importa lo que piensen canadienses e italianos?

Es cierto que el G-7 se convirtió en el G-8 cuando uno de los países BRIC fue invitado a sumarse en 1998. Pero es absurdo que Brasil, China e India sigan siendo tratados según el término acuñado por los alemanes: personas “indignas de ser invitadas a entrar en el salón”. Porque la verdad es que, junto con México y Sudáfrica, se les ha relegado literalmente estos días a la antesala del poder mundial, como si se tratara de países dependientes de auxilio o amparo en la escena mundial.

¿Amparados? ¡Diríase más bien ultrajados! ¿Qué conclusiones mínimamente serias cabe alcanzar en temas como el cambio climático – o, para el caso, África- sin que los chinos se hallen presentes en la sala? Lo propio se aplica en el caso de la disputa sobre los misiles defensivos. China casi ha doblado su gasto militar en los últimos tres años: de 62.500 millones de dólares en el 2004 a 122.000 millones en el 2006, aún bastante menos que el gasto estadounidense en este ejercicio, 522.000 millones de dólares, país por cierto cuyos recursos cada vez van a parar más y más a la guerra en Oriente Medio que parece no tener fin.

Según los cálculos de Goldman Sachs, el PIB chino podría superar el estadounidense para el 2035, pero hace poco esta fecha se ha adelantado al 2027…

En fin, para cuando los canosos países del G-7 se decidan a invitar a China y a los otros dos países BRIC a sumarse a un G-11 ampliado, podrá exclamarse con justicia: ¡A buenas horas mangas verdes! De hecho, ya presenciamos este panorama.

La celebración de esta Cumbre Ampliada del G-8 en Heiligendamm, Alemania, ofrece una nueva oportunidad a los líderes de Suráfrica, Brasil, China, India y México para profundizar en el diálogo, iniciado en Evián en 2003, con las principales economías industrializadas sobre temas prioritarios de la agenda internacional.

Año tras año, estas reuniones van fortaleciéndose y adquiriendo mayor reconocimiento al introducir nuevos enfoques en los debates del G-8. Estoy convencido de que el cambio climático, el desarrollo sostenible, las fuentes de energía nuevas y renovables y la financiación para el desarrollo son temas sobre los que es necesario que las principales economías emergentes hagan oír más su voz, no sólo porque las poblaciones de nuestros países se ven directamente afectadas, sino por la capacidad de nuestras naciones de formular e implantar propuestas innovadoras para responder a esos múltiples desafíos.

La transformación de los biocombustibles en bienes internacionales es un ejemplo de cómo estamos aunando esfuerzos para encontrar respuestas coordinadas. La difusión del uso del etanol y del biodiésel ayuda a democratizar el acceso a la energía, disminuyendo la dependencia mundial de las últimas reservas de hidrocarburos. Al mismo tiempo, contribuye a reducir las emisiones de gases contaminantes, lo que ayuda a minimizar los efectos del cambio climático que nos afecta a todos.

Los biocombustibles tienen relevancia especial para los países en vías de desarrollo. Por su enorme potencial para generar empleos y renta, ofrecen una verdadera opción de crecimiento sostenible, especialmente para países que dependen de la exportación de pocos bienes primarios. Al mismo tiempo, el etanol y el biodiésel abren nuevas vías de desarrollo, sobre todo en las industrias bioquímicas. Constituyen alternativas económicas, sociales y tecnológicas al alcance de países pobres económicamente, pero ricos en sol y tierras cultivables.

Las críticas de que los biocombustibles pueden afectar a la seguridad alimentaria o agravar los cambios climáticos parten de una falsa premisa. Siempre y cuando los países adopten cultivos adecuados a sus realidades y necesidades, los biocombustibles pueden cumplir con las exigencias de seguridad alimentaria y preservación del medio ambiente. Un sistema de rigurosa certificación pública, plasmado en acuerdos multilaterales, conservará el medio ambiente y garantizará unas condiciones aceptables de trabajo. El equilibrio entre la pequeña propiedad familiar y las grandes plantaciones también puede quedar asegurado, como establece, por ejemplo, la legislación brasileña. Los brasileños estamos compartiendo esa experiencia con nuestros vecinos de América Latina y el Caribe y con nuestros hermanos africanos.

Asimismo, para alcanzar los Objetivos de Desarrollo del Milenio será necesario multiplicar los mecanismos financieros innovadores capaces de garantizar los recursos necesarios para cambiar las condiciones de vida de millones de marginados. El cobro de contribuciones sobre los billetes aéreos es un pequeño ejemplo de lo que se puede hacer, como quedó claro en la creación de la Central Internacional de Medicamentos, la UNITAID.

La Cumbre Ampliada del G-8 ofrece la oportunidad de formular estrategias mundialmente integradas para hacer frente a las grandes amenazas mundiales. No habrá desarrollo sostenible, armonía medioambiental ni seguridad duradera si no conseguimos eliminar el hambre y la extrema desigualdad.

Por ello, las negociaciones comerciales multilaterales deben avanzar. Es necesario una verdadera ronda de desarrollo en la Organización Mundial del Comercio, con resultados que les reporten a los países más necesitados los beneficios tantas veces prometidos, pero nunca plenamente materializados, de la liberalización comercial.

Tal vez la mayor prueba de nuestra capacidad de forjar un gobierno verdaderamente global esté en el reparto de responsabilidades y costes en cuanto a los cambios inaplazables que tenemos por delante.

Estas responsabilidades son compartidas, aunque diferentes. Cuando hablamos del calentamiento global o de las negociaciones comerciales multilaterales, no podemos tratar de la misma manera a países con capacidades y responsabilidades tan dispares. La legítima protección de la propiedad intelectual, por ejemplo -que figura en la agenda del G-8- no puede superponerse al imperativo ético de garantizar medicamentos esenciales a precios asequibles.

Brasil es plenamente consciente de sus obligaciones y está activamente comprometido con todas estas iniciativas. Por esta razón, confiamos en que el diálogo ampliado del G-8 siga siendo una instancia indispensable en la consolidación de una agenda común, de intereses y desafíos compartidos por todos en el planeta.

La constitución de un foro permanente entre países en desarrollo y desarrollados para tratar las cuestiones centrales del mundo de hoy contribuirá a que la globalización sea menos asimétrica y más solidaria.

Madeleine Bunting rightly identifies the complexity of the aid debate, one which has left Africans and people across the developing world floundering for far too long (Bob Geldof too has a part to play in the G8′s broken promises to Africa, June 4).However, the fault lies clearly at the door of the G8 leaders for back-pedalling on their commitments rather than on the campaigners who merely tried to hold them to account. Bunting says: “What Make Poverty History didn’t even attempt to explain to the generation it was trying to recruit was that campaigns on global justice have to be counted in decades, not months, let alone weeks.” Although campaigning that engages a wide range of age groups and interests often risks a certain amount of watering down in the messages, many behind Make Poverty History did keep the long-term challenge in focus and carried with them many of the people who marched and petitioned so vociferously in 2005.

In the past two years, Global Call to Action Against Poverty, of which Make Poverty History was a founding part, has mobilised millions of citizens to hold their governments to account in over 100 poor and rich countries.

“Nor did Make Poverty History explain how development is a complex business,” says Bunting. Yes, there are lots of complications to the debate on aid and on some levels they need to be explained, but the bottom line is that aid saves lives. It is that simple. It pays for the provision of essential services that we can’t otherwise afford. We, the people living in the most disadvantaged economies on earth, need more and better aid, fairer trade conditions and the lifting of the debt burden.

Bunting talks about how “targets dictated by western donors [are] in danger of choking the kind of long term investment African public services need”. Yes, Africa needs long term investment, but it is crucial that it happens alongside the aid commitments made by the G8 governments, not in isolation.

Bunting mentions the risk of donor fatigue setting in: but what would Europe have done if donor fatigue had set in during the Marshall Plan rebuilding of their continent? Why is it that 60 years ago billions in aid could be delivered to reconstruct war-torn Europe, but the rich are reluctant to do so with their former colonies in Africa and the rest of the developing world today?

It is starting to feel as if the anti-racist struggle of my youth in South Africa needs to move to a new global level. If the G8 fails to deliver, it would consolidate the growing perception among people in the developing world that we are living in a world of global economic apartheid. Six thousand people die of HIV/Aids every day in Africa alone, is this not some sort of passive genocide?

The blame lies with the G8 leaders. The public couldn’t be clearer about the urgent need for action, but the politicians prefer procrastination and complacency as millions continue to die from preventable poverty. Not only have they betrayed the poor in developing countries but also their own citizens.

The G8 summit that gets under way today could be a key step towards a global agreement on climate change, and steer the 25 countries responsible for 80% of carbon emissions on a course to a new treaty to replace Kyoto after 2012.Yet there is also an enormous danger at Heiligendamm. If the summiteers compromise on what the science is telling us we have to do, or agree to a US-style plan for warm words but little action, the whole trajectory of the talks will go awry. Far from averting dangerous change, we will have decided to inflict incalculable consequences on our own prosperity and – worse – on millions in the developing world.

If there is one leader who personifies that danger, it is Tony Blair. This is his last G8 summit. He has been determined to ensure that it is seen in Britain as his show, even rejecting appeals to take Gordon Brown with him. Who better to forge a compromise between Europe and the US than the midwife of so many of George Bush’s other unacceptable policies? Blair wants his legacy – but it must not poison a sound successor to the Kyoto protocol.

The danger was highlighted by Sir David King, Blair’s chief scientific adviser, when he reiterated last week that a key goal of the summit should be greenhouse gas stabilisation in the atmosphere. Quite right. But Sir David added ominously that the British position – for 450-550 parts per million (ppm) – would be an implicit weakening of the EU agreement in March and wave goodbye to averting climate chaos.

This range is simply inadequate to stop global warming of more than 2C above pre-industrial levels. Yet two degrees – we are already at 0.7 degrees – is widely recognised as the threshold of unacceptably dangerous change. It could mean the loss of the Greenland and west Antarctic ice sheets, and a rise of seven metres in sea levels – a catastrophe for delta cultures such as Bangladesh and the Netherlands.

For many others, droughts, floods and storm damage will rise sharply. There could be millions of refugees. Thawing permafrost in Alaska, Canada and Russia could lead to large releases of methane, a greenhouse gas four times more powerful than carbon dioxide. Global warming above 2C is a world that human beings should not want to visit.

Last month the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that 445-490 ppm – the lower end of the British position – would lead to warming of 2-2.4 degrees; the upper range would lead to warming of 2.4-2.8 degrees. A paper by the Swiss scientist Malte Meinshausen shows there is an 85% risk of overshooting 2C if we go for the top end of the British range. Even at the bottom end, there is just a 53% chance of staying within 2C.

Thankfully, Angela Merkel, the summit host, is a physicist, and may be the only participant to understand what is at stake. She is the first G8 premier to have been an environment minister, and was her country’s Kyoto negotiator.

However, the pressures for global compromise will be intense, not least because Germany itself will only hold the presidency of the EU for another month, and will not host another G8 summit for years. The EU must not relent. If Bush does not move enough – and he is moving – it would be better to isolate the US and wait for a more enlightened administration than agree a trajectory for a new protocol that would be doomed to fail because it is doomed to pursue the wrong objective. You cannot split the difference with a disaster. They do not come in halves.

France’s little big man is determined to make his mark. His “mandate for change” has raised expectations to levels akin to those that accompanied Tony Blair into Downing Street in 1997. As for Mr Blair then, there is a moment of opportunity for Mr Sarkozy now to take the lead internationally as well as at home. But there is also the familiar danger that ambition will outstrip performance. The G8 summit is the first test of his mettle.

Mr Sarkozy has been telling interviewers this week that he intends to hold “frank and direct” discussions with Vladimir Putin. But those who infer from this that Russia’s outspoken president faces an overdue wigging over human rights abuses, energy blackmail, and threats to target missiles on Europe may be disappointed.

Rather than confront Moscow, as some in the US and eastern Europe are beginning to urge, the west should forge “a strategic relationship and very friendly relations” with Russia, Mr Sarkozy said. It was necessary to understand what “worries” Mr Putin and what “mobilises” him. This sounds eminently sensible, except that it is the same approach pursued by George Bush and Mr Blair at the start of the Putin presidency. It has since become plain that for Russia’s cocksure leader, empathy equals weakness.

Mr Sarkozy has also been raising hopes of more robust action on climate change and Darfur. Speaking to Politique Internationale magazine, he said the Bush administration should stop dragging its feet on global warming and the Kyoto protocol was only a beginning.

“We have to go further with the 20 industrialised countries emitting the most greenhouse gases. I’m thinking especially of the US which I’d like to shoulder its share of responsibility,” Mr Sarkozy said. China, India, Russia and Brazil would also have to “play their full part”. To help meet this global challenge, a “world environment organisation” should be created, similar to the World Trade Organisation.

Mr Sarkozy was speaking before Mr Bush unveiled his own proposal for a new, non-binding, US-led international effort to tackle climate change that would bypass the UN. A French official said today that Mr Sarkozy would continue to insist on binding targets and a leading role for the UN. “We must have a multilateral mechanism,” the official said.

Therein lies a quandary. The French president says he wants improved ties with the US – a tall order, according to foreign affairs analyst Dominique Moisi, while Mr Bush remains in office. On the climate change issue, he could face his own “security council moment”, as in 2003 when France opposed the Bush administration’s decision to circumvent the UN on Iraq and bilateral relations nosedived. If Mr Sarkozy blinks on this or other key issues, his credibility will quickly plummet, too.

His appointment of the humanitarian campaigner and socialist, Bernard Kouchner, as foreign minister, has been characterised as a masterstroke, disarming the French left on the eve of national assembly elections. It has also fed the belief that human rights issues, and Blair-style humanitarian intervention, particularly in African conflicts, will feature higher up France’s agenda.

Mr Sarkozy is due to speak on Darfur tomorrow. His spokesman said his message would be: “We can no longer resign ourselves to being powerless witnesses of horror. After the indignation, now we must act.” But similar words have been heard many times since the killing started – and Mr Sarkozy is still emphasising political negotiation, not direct action. Perhaps he will succeed where so many others have failed.

Awareness of the need for collective, mutually reinforcing policymaking explained Mr Sarkozy’s other main area of emphasis – the need to strengthen the EU and its institutions, the French official said. “Europe must defend European interests. These are more than a collection of national interests. European interests include trade, agriculture, security, shared values.”

Defining Europe’s borders (with Turkey firmly outside them), and creating a parallel “Mediterranean union” of neighbouring states are other, linked priorities that may or may not come to fruition.

In the interest of a strong and efficient Europe, Mr Sarkozy would pursue a “simplified treaty” to replace the EU constitution rejected in 2005, the official said. Such a pact was vital for creating the institutions needed by an enlarged and more effective EU. Mr Sarkozy knows he has Berlin’s support for the plan; he has been quick to kick-start the Franco-German motor. He will seek to change Polish minds next week during a visit to Warsaw.

But selling the idea to Gordon Brown, Britain’s sceptical prime minister-in-waiting, could prove his most daunting challenge. Like Napoleon, Mr Sarkozy may discover that the limits of French power are defined by the Straits of Dover.

It is time once again for that touching annual ritual, in which the world’s most powerful people move themselves to tears. At Heiligendamm they will emote with the wretched of the earth. They will beat their breasts and say many worthy and necessary things – about climate change, Africa, poverty, trade – but one word will not leave their lips. Power. Amid the patrician goodwill, there will be no acknowledgement that the power they wield over other nations destroys everything they claim to stand for.

The leaders of the G8 nations present themselves as a force for unmitigated good. Sometimes they fail, but they seek only to make the world a kinder place. Bob Geldof and Bono give oxygen to this deception, speaking of the good works the leaders might perform, or of the good works they have failed to perform – but not mentioning the active harm. They refuse to acknowledge that what the rich nations give with one finger they take with both hands.

Look at what is happening, right now, in the Philippines. This country has many problems, but one stands out: just 16% of children between four and five months old are exclusively breastfed. This is one of the lowest documented rates on earth, and it has fallen by a third since 1998. As 70% of Filipinos have inadequate access to clean water, the result is a public health disaster. Every year, according to the World Health Organisation, some 16,000 Filipino children die as a result of “inappropriate feeding practices”.

These are the deaths caused only by acute results of feeding children with substitutes for breastmilk. A summary of peer-reviewed studies compiled by the campaigning groups Infact and Ibfan suggests that breastfeeding also reduces the incidence of asthma, allergies, childhood cancers, diabetes, coeliac disease, Crohn’s, colitis, poor cognitive development, obesity, cardiovascular disease, ear infections and poor dentition. Switching from bottle to breast could prevent 13% of all childhood deaths – a greater impact than any other measure. Panaceas are rare in medicine, but the mammary gland is one.

Both the government of the Philippines and the UN blame the manufacturers of baby formula for much of the decline in breastfeeding. These companies spend over $100m a year on advertising breastmilk substitutes in the Philippines, which equates to more than half the department of health’s annual budget. Those who appear most susceptible to this advertising are the poor, who are also the most likely to be using contaminated water to make up the feed. Some spend as much as one third of their household income on formula. Powdered milk now accounts for more sales than any other consumer product in the Philippines. Almost all of it is produced by companies based in the rich nations.

Since Ferdinand Marcos was deposed in 1986, the government of the Philippines has been trying to stand between these corporations and vulnerable mothers. It has failed. It plugs one loophole; the formula companies find another. Baby Milk Action, one of the world’s most impressive public health campaigns, has compiled a dossier of breaches of the marketing code drawn up by the World Health Organisation. Formula companies have been dispensing gifts to both health workers and mothers, running promotional classes and meetings and advertising their wares on television and in magazines and papers. These practices, though mostly legal in the Philippines, are all discouraged by the code.

In February this year, the Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Association of the Philippines (Phap), which represents multinational companies, ran a series of advertisements expressing concern for women unable to breastfeed their children. The campaign was described by Jean Ziegler, the UN’s special rapporteur on the right to food, as “misleading, deceptive, and malicious in intent”. He claimed the adverts “manipulate data emanating from UN specialised agencies such as WHO and Unicef … with the sole purpose to protect the milk companies’ huge profits, regardless of the best interest of Filipino mothers and children”.

Last year, in the hope of arresting this public health disaster, the Philippines’ department of health drew up a new set of rules. It prohibited all advertising and promotion of infant formula for children up to two years old. It forbade the formula companies from giving away gifts or samples, and from providing assistance to health workers or classes to mothers. The new rules seem stiff, but they all come straight from the WHO’s code. Phap, whose members include most of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies, went to the supreme court to try to obtain a restraining order. When it failed the big guns arrived.

The US embassy and the US regional trade representative started lobbying the Philippines government. Then the chief executive of the US Chamber of Commerce in Washington – which represents 3m businesses – wrote a letter to the president of the Philippines, Gloria Arroyo. The new rules, he claimed, would have “unintended negative consequences for investors’ confidence”. The country’s reputation “as a stable and viable destination for investment is at risk”. Four days later, the supreme court reversed its decision and imposed the restraining order Phap had requested. It remains in force today. The government is currently unable to prevent companies from breaking the international code.

So the department of health asked a senior government lawyer, Nestor Ballocillo, to contest the order. In December Ballocillo and his son were shot dead while walking from their home. The case remains unsolved; Ballocillo was working on several contentious cases at the time. Last month the US regional trade representative paid another visit to the Philippines government. The department of health appears to be wavering. In two weeks the campaigners promoting breastfeeding will present their arguments to the supreme court to try to get the order lifted, and the formula companies will try to stop them. If the companies win, thousands of children will continue to die of preventable diseases.

The pressure to which the US government and the US Chamber of Commerce has subjected the government of the Philippines is at odds with almost everything the G8 now claims to stand for: the millennium health and education goals, the eradication of poverty, fair terms of trade. But the G8 nations will pursue their stated objectives only to the point at which they collide with their own interests. Away from their sentimental summits, they pull down everything they claim to be building.

The G8 demands action on climate change; the World Bank, controlled by the G8 nations, funds coal burning power stations and deforestation projects. The G8 requests better terms of trade for Africa; Europe and the United States use the world trade talks to make sure this doesn’t happen. The G8 leaders call for the debt to be reduced; the IMF demands that poor nations remove barriers to the capital flows that leave them in hock. The G8 leaders simultaneously wring their hands and wash their hands: we have done what we can; if we have failed, it is only because of the corruption of third world elites.

The question is no longer whether the undemocratic power the G8 nations exert over the rest of the world can be used for good or ill. The question is whether it will cease to be used.

En estos momentos en los que el grupo de los ocho países más industrializados del mundo (G-8) va a celebrar su reunión número 33 desde que se fundó en 1975, en la localidad francesa de Rambouillet, podemos hacernos dos preguntas: ¿resulta aún apropiada esta estructura para un mundo económico transformado desde hace 30 años por el crecimiento y la globalización? ¿Y qué resultados podemos esperar de esta reunión de un grupo que no tiene ningún poder de decisión?

Cuando creamos el Grupo de los Siete en 1975, sin la participación de la Rusia de entonces, teníamos un objetivo concreto: permitir que los líderes de los grandes países industrializados sostuvieran un debate íntimo y personal sobre los problemas económicos del momento. Para evitar los excesos burocráticos, que podían quitar a la reunión la espontaneidad y la libertad de expresión y, por tanto, todo interés, cada delegación estuvo formada por sólo tres personas, y todos los participantes se reunieron en una misma sala, en la planta baja del palacio de Rambouillet.

Desde aquel entonces, el sistema ha degenerado ante las presiones de las burocracias nacionales. Cuando leo que, en Heiligendamm, los jefes de Estado y de Gobierno van a estar acompañados por 2.000 personas, entre consejeros y otros, pienso que hay pocas posibilidades de que logren la intimidad y la sinceridad que son condiciones indispensables para este tipo de encuentro. Estaría bien que a la canciller alemana, Angela Merkel, que se ha encargado con gran competencia de preparar la reunión, se le ocurriera intentar decidir que, en el futuro, la participación directa o indirecta de cada Estado se limite a un número fijo, 10 o 15 personas como máximo, lo cual permitiría volver a unas reuniones más modestas, más íntimas, acordes con los tiempos, y quitar argumentos a una parte de quienes critican este espectáculo ostentoso.

¿Sigue siendo representativo el Grupo de los Ocho? Desde luego que sí, porque el peso económico de sus miembros representa el 63% del PIB mundial y aproximadamente el 50% del comercio internacional de mercancías, además de que financia alrededor de las tres cuartas partes de la ayuda al desarrollo. Sin embargo, es evidente que no incluye entre sus miembros a los países con mayor índice de crecimiento, como China, India y Brasil. Seguramente no serviría de nada incorporar nuevos miembros, porque sus deliberaciones quedarían desnaturalizadas, pero ése es un argumento más para hacer que recupere su vocación original, la de ofrecer a los jefes de Estado y de Gobierno un lugar de discusión e intercambio que les permita conocer con más detalle sus respectivos puntos de vista y extraer espacios de consenso en los que realizar acciones comunes.

¿Qué podemos esperar, pues, de la reunión de Heiligendamm? Ninguna decisión, porque el Grupo de los Ocho no está dotado de ningún poder, pero sí aclaraciones, orientaciones y la búsqueda de ciertos consensos. Podemos esperarlos en relación con tres asuntos.

En primer lugar, la actitud respecto al cambio climático. ¿La negativa de los estadounidenses a ratificar un protocolo vinculante firmado por ellos persistirá más allá de 2012, o puede evolucionar? ¿Cuál es la reacción norteamericana a la decisión del Consejo Europeo de marzo de 2007 de reducir las emisiones de CO2 de la Unión Europea en un 20% antes de 2020 y a la propuesta del primer ministro japonés de reducir las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero en un 50% de aquí a 2050? Este es un tema de debate típico del G-8, que requiere una discusión franca. ¿Qué serie de medidas de ámbito nacional está dispuesto a adoptar cada Estado de los que comparten la voluntad política? ¿Y cuál podría ser la estrategia común respecto a los países que tienen un crecimiento elevado y un gran potencial contaminante, y que están al margen del protocolo de Kioto?

Segundo, los desequilibrios económicos mundiales, sobre todo comerciales, y los cambios introducidos por la globalización financiera. ¿Están dispuestos los responsables del G-8 a apartarse definitivamente del sistema establecido tras la Segunda Guerra Mundial, que pretendía obtener una cierta estabilidad de los tipos de cambio y controlar los desequilibrios excesivos?, y, en ese caso, ¿con qué sistema tienen pensado sustituirlo? ¿Deben examinarse con detalle los efectos y los peligros de la globalización financiera y el enorme incremento de los movimientos de capitales?

Por último, el tercer asunto, que es el del desarrollo del continente africano, debe ser objeto de un intercambio de puntos de vista entre los principales países donantes, sin reminiscencias colonialistas ni rivalidades nacionales. El importe de los futuros programas se negociará en las instancias adecuadas, pero es preciso plantearse varias cuestiones de principio: ¿Hay que seguir financiando un modelo de desarrollo de tipo occidental, mal adaptado a la cultura y las especificidades africanas, o hay que tender a que se convierta en una ayuda al empleo e incluso un complemento de ingresos? ¿Y qué medidas enérgicas es preciso tomar para acabar con los desvíos de fondos de la ayuda a todos los niveles, incluidos los paraísos fiscales? Eso quiere decir, por supuesto, que empiecen por dar ejemplo de rigor las grandes instituciones financieras. A todo esto pueden añadirse una reflexión sobre la relación entre demografía y desarrollo y un nuevo impulso a la lucha contra el sida.

Son temas importantes de los que debe hablarse junto a la chimenea, entre dirigentes responsables, sin buscar efectos mediáticos. Por eso sería prudente dejar que sea Angela Merkel la que presente las conclusiones del “grupo” y no dar demasiada importancia a las declaraciones nacionales, que buscan inflar el papel desempeñado en las discusiones por los Estados participantes e incluso por las personalidades presentes.

Al despedirse, los miembros del grupo podrán preguntarse sobre el futuro de la institución. ¿Cuánto tiempo más a durar? Sin duda, uno o dos decenios. Pero, cuando el PIB de China y el de la India superen a los de todos los miembros del G-8, con la excepción de Estados Unidos y quizá Japón -cosa para la que no falta mucho-, convendrá buscar una forma más apropiada de gobierno económico mundial.

Rambouillet habrá cumplido su papel.

Contrary to the article below, Namibia was not Germany’s only colonial experience in Africa. The German protectorates of Kamerun (Cameroon) and Togoland lasted from 1884 to 1916. Germany also established the colony of German East Africa, which included what is now Burundi, Rwanda and the mainland part of Tanzania – it came into existence in the 1880s and ended during the first world war.

Africa is back on the G8 agenda this week, at the exclusive resort of Heiligendamm, for the first time since Gleneagles in 2005. But no one is quite sure why, least of all the German public. Despite Bono’s and Bob’s best efforts, with a concert planned on Thursday and Bob guest-editing the biggest-selling German newspaper Bilt Zeitung last week, the Your Voice Against Poverty campaign has not caught the public imagination as Make Poverty History did in the UK in 2005.

German aid agencies are church-based and less orientated to campaigning, while Bono’s rock recruits from the German music scene keep their distance from politicians for fear of damaging their credibility – but in the process lose their leverage over politicians eager for celebrity endorsement. Perhaps even the absence of colonial guilt (Namibia was Germany’s only, brief, experience of African empire) has had some role to play.

Meanwhile, having Africa on the agenda has been a headache for the German government. Their concern is that the only story on the G8 and Africa will be about broken promises and how delivery of the 2005 pledges is disastrously off track. In the past few weeks, the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, has been looking for a good news story – an announcement of an increase in German aid of around €2bn (£1.35bn) is likely – to mask the fact that the G8′s agreement in Gleneagles is in danger of falling apart. It has gone to the wire, with still no agreement on how to word the commitment to the 2005 deal. More “sherpa” meetings of officials will be held today and tomorrow ahead of the summit opening on Wednesday.

What was hailed as the most ambitious G8 commitment ever made is now looking dangerously close to a sham. It was agreed at Gleneagles to double aid to reach $50bn by 2010. But instead of aid rising, it actually fell in 2006 for the first time since 1997. The figures have been massaged to look better than they should by adding in massive debt relief for Iraq and Nigeria. Strip those out, and aid fell from five of the G7 countries (Russia is not included in the aid statistics) in the year after they had made historic commitments to increase it. At the current rate, there will be a shortfall of $30bn by 2010; more than half of what was promised in 2005 shows no sign of being delivered. G8 promises aren’t worth the paper they are printed on.

So who are the villains? Well, it’s a change from the usual story of US infamy because the core of this problem lies in Europe. It was European countries which made the biggest promises and which are proving so lamentably bad at implementing them. That’s why what happens in Heiligendamm – the last G8 in Europe for several years – is so crucial. If Germany comes up with some money then it will pile the pressure on the worst offenders – France and, above all, Italy. Aid fell in the latter by 16% last year and unless something changes fast, it will deliver a paltry $1.4bn of the $9.5bn it promised by 2010. France’s shortfall is running at 50% of its 2010 aid promise. Even the UK, which prides itself on its exemplary commitment to the developing world, is falling behind. If European countries got their act together, the Gleneagles agreement would be back on track.

It is hardly the most compelling rallying cry for campaigners – that victory counts not as new advances but as a reiteration of two-year-old promises. In fact, campaigners and aid agencies are in a bit of a dilemma. Pump up the outrage at the G8′s duplicity and they risk disillusionment from all those who thought Make Poverty History’s mass engagement was a triumphant success. What good does it do to point out that even after all the celebrities, the concerts, the media saturation and the white wristbands, progress is still achingly slow, edging forward and too often slipping back? It leaves a bitter taste that Make Poverty History might become by 2010 another example of the failure of mass public protest alongside the 2003 Stop the War march.

Harsh though it may be to say so, the dilemma is partly of Make Poverty History’s making. It was a bold bid to inspire a generation’s engagement with Africa but to do so, it sold itself as an instant solution. It made no attempt to manage expectations – on the contrary, it encouraged them to soar beyond any kind of realistic fulfilment. The desperate suffering and poverty of Africa could be solved. Campaigners always strike a precarious balance between optimism and realism, but the balance in 2005 was on the former. After Gleneagles, it declared victory and demobilised the troops.

What Make Poverty History didn’t even attempt to explain to the generation it was trying to recruit was that campaigns on global justice have to be counted in decades not months, let alone weeks. It took 25 years for the debt campaign to achieve some measure of debt cancellation in 2005, and that battle is not over. Poor countries are still paying the rich world $100m a day in debt repayments. Countries signed up to 0.7% of gross domestic product in aid in 1970; the UK won’t achieve it until 2013, 43 years later.

Nor did Make Poverty History explain how development is a complex business. If we struggle to achieve public sector reform in the UK, why should it be any easier to deliver effective schools and hospitals in Africa? It’s not just about giving money. An uncomfortable gap in what aid can achieve has opened up between the campaigners and the policy experts on the ground. The latter complain that Africa is drowning in a plethora of global initiatives (100 on health alone), all of which gobble up the time and attention of under-resourced governments. The managerial plague of targets dictated by western donors is in danger of choking the kind of long-term investment African public services need. Donors want results to sell to their electorates and supporters – numbers of children vaccinated, bums on school benches – but often what’s first needed is stronger infrastructure such as good administrators, teachers trained or midwives paid properly.

Donor disillusionment is a real danger because it will sap the determination to tackle what will be the biggest campaigning challenge of the next half century – climate justice. In Africa, it’s estimated that 232,000 square miles of cultivatable land will be ruined, and up to a third of Africa’s population could face water shortages by 2020. Africa is the continent that will be hit first and hardest by climate change. The World Bank puts adaptation costs for developing countries at $41bn a year, yet so far only $48m has been contributed. The issue is making its first appearance at a G8 summit this week. But if it is taking nearly half a century to reach the 0.7% aid commitment, there’s no guessing how long it will take – how many marches, rock concerts and celebrities not yet born – not just to get pledges on climate justice from the mouths of G8 leaders but to get them delivered.

Larry Elliott’s article included pronouncements from Tony Blair, Kofi Annan and Bob Geldof on the G8′s shameful reneging on aid commitments (In 2005, G8 pledged $50bn for Africa. Now the reality, April 25). Annan describes the “sliding” effect since the Gleneagles summit two years ago, and Blair says “there’s more that needs to be done”; we agree, much more.However, the article concentrates almost exclusively on aid volume and the flagship $50bn figure that the G8 had pledged. Quantity is undoubtedly important, as is the need to exert pressure on the G8 to stick to their financial commitments. But another concept that crops up in the article begs to be more fully explored: responsibility.

Blair talks about the need to take a “responsible and long-term view of Africa”. But what does acting responsibly mean for the G8? The article implies that the responsibility for supporting African countries links back to the UK’s self-interest. We would argue that real responsibility by the G8 means scrutinising the way in which it chooses to wield its enormous power.

The G8 is all but unaccountable. Left to its own devices, it has a tendency to overstretch its legitimate mandate and not respond to the actual needs of African governments. In 2005 the Africa Commission marked a high point in attempts to build a plan of action with, rather than for, African governments. It’s essential that we don’t let the G8 fall back into the trap of assuming that, just because they have all the money, they have all the answers.

At this year’s summit, healthcare will be on the agenda. This is great: 800 children’s lives could be saved each day if they received their healthcare for free. But instead of listening to African health ministers and sorting out the chaotic international health system, made up of almost 90 different initiatives, we are seeing a new proposal called Providing for Health, which attempts to dictate how national health systems should be ordered.

The G8 should be sorting out the international system so that governments in places such as Liberia, who are desperate for donor money, can build a free health system for all in their country and then be held accountable by their own people. Children in Liberia are today dying of illnesses such as diarrhoea simply because they can’t afford to see a doctor. Meanwhile, the national debt remains uncancelled despite the strong leadership from the new president, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf.

Tony Blair says: “There are still far too many Africans who die when their death is preventable with our help.” He needs to know that, despite the fact that African health is on the G8 agenda, there was no German representation at the African health ministers’ meeting in Johannesburg last month. How is this an example of the G8 taking a “responsible and long-term view of Africa”?

The G8 should support and advise, not dictate; provide good-quality, predictable aid; and get the international system fit for purpose. Only they have the collective power to do so. Perhaps then will we see more successes like the one in Zambia, where free healthcare is keeping children alive.

No estaba el horno para bollos. No estaba el ambiente en San Petersburgo para que el G-5, el grupo de los principales países emergentes, lograra una atención especial de los poderosos del mundo para los problemas de los países emergentes y de los países que tratan de emerger, sobre todo los de África. La crisis de Oriente Próximo, que se agravó mientras los jefes de Estado y de Gobierno estaban reunidos, se llevó la mayoría del tiempo y lo mejor de los pensamientos de los congregados. Porque la escalada de los ataques israelís al Líbano, un país que no ha declarado la guerra a Israel, sobrepasa lo que la legítima defensa (entendida ampliamente) justificaría. Cierto que el Líbano alberga, por complicadas razones históricas y de equilibrio regional, a un ala radical del movimiento islamista, los combatientes de Hizbulá, que comenzaron a lanzar misiles a algunas ciudades israelís como represalia por el trato a los palestinos. En todo caso es una situación complicada, que puede tener graves consecuencias para la región y para el mundo (¿podría aguantar la economía mundial un petróleo a 100 dólares el barril?). Los líderes de las democracias occidentales no supieron ponerse de acuerdo para conseguir un alto el fuego y cambiar el curso de las agresiones mutuas. Cuando no coinciden las simpatías no pueden coincidir las voluntades.
Otro problema vital para Rusia y para el Occidente rico era el tema de la energía. Aunque está íntimamente relacionado con los problemas de Oriente Próximo, se trató como si la inestabilidad política de la región fuera algo endémico, inevitable e irreparable. Esta tácita –o metodológica– suposición convierte a Rusia, que va ganando estabilidad política bajo la mano firme de Putin, en un proveedor estratégico del oro negro y del gas natural, y en un regulador privilegiado del mercado. Esto conviene a la estrategia a largo plazo de EEUU, que apunta a depender cada vez menos de las fuentes de energía de Oriente Próximo. Rusia es, después de todo, el segundo proveedor de petróleo del mundo y el primero de gas natural.

EL COMPROMISO que adquirió Rusia antes sus pares en la reunión pretende “mejorar la seguridad energética mundial mediante el refuerzo de la transparencia, la previsión y la estabilidad de los mercados internacionales”. En otras palabras, evitando la especulación y dando información de la situación real de la oferta en coyunturas críticas. El compromiso de Putin para que los mercados funcionen con eficiencia lo ha elevado a una plataforma de respeto. Aunque quizá no logró tanto respeto (al menos por parte de algunos) por su decidida defensa de la energía nuclear, “segura”, desde luego, como no podía menos que añadir con lo vivido en Chernobil.
Para los problemas del mundo pobre quedó poco tiempo y entusiasmo. No se pudieron evitar totalmente, porque se habría convertido en una burla la invitación a los líderes de Brasil, México, la India, China y África del Sur (el G-5) en representación de los países emergentes y de los que tratan de emerger. Esos países, que junto con Rusia forman los llamados países BRIC, o países con más esperanzas de llegar pronto a ser contados entre los desarrollados, tienen algunos contenciosos con los países ricos, sobre todo en cuestiones de comercio. Del acuerdo entre los dos grupos depende que no fracase el año que viene la ronda de Doha, la ronda de negociaciones comerciales que empezó en el 2001 en la capital del emirato de Qatar.
Los países emergentes quieren que se abran del todo los mercados de los países industrializados a sus manufacturas, y que renuncien a subsidiar los productos agrícolas que comercian internacionalmente (cereales, azúcar, carne, frutas tropicales…). A los emergentes, los países industrializados les exigen igualmente que abran sus mercados a sus manufacturas y a los servicios que prestan internacionalmente, y, además, que respeten los derechos de propiedad, las patentes industriales, marcas registradas y otras defensas de la innovación y la inversión en nuevos productos. En San Petersburgo, el representante chino prometió estudiar la reducción de su protección industrial, a la espera de medidas recíprocas. El presidente Chirac, por su parte, declaró que la UE no podía hacer concesiones significativas en agricultura mientras no lo hicieran también EEUU y otros exportadores ricos (como Australia y Canadá). Total, que no hubo avances y la ronda de Doha no está más cerca de acabar con éxito que antes de la cumbre.

SE PAGÓ un tributo verbal a la necesidad de fomentar la educación, sobre todo la educación para la democracia; de combatir las enfermedades infecciosas, pero no se prometió nuevo dinero para ello. Las oenegés, no sólo las tradicionales de los países industrializados, sino las nuevas de Rusia (que están ganando protagonismo en su sociedad), una vez más han manifestado descontento y frustración por los vagos –y casi rutinarios– acuerdos alcanzados para el desarrollo de los países más pobres, que realmente no estaban representados en la cumbre: la lucha contra las enfermedades que diezman a sus poblaciones y el combate estructural contra la pobreza. El ganador de la conferencia fue Rusia y el perdedor, como es tradicional, África. El mundo pierde también, porque no hubo condena a los abusos contra los derechos humanos que se llevan a cabo en la lucha contra el terrorismo, tanto en Chechenia, Palestina o Guantá- namo, como en Londres o París.

¿Cuál es el propósito del G-8? Este fin de semana se reunirán en la Cumbre del G-8 en San Petersburgo los Jefes de Estado de los ocho países democráticos más industrializados, a los que nos uniremos, en nombre de la UE, yo mismo y el Primer Ministro finlandés Matti Vanhanen. Sin embargo, con sólo la UE y ocho países, de un total aproximado de doscientos, sentados en torno a la mesa, la representatividad resulta escasa. Tampoco se trata de un grupo negociador, pues, cuando sus miembros llegan a un consenso, sus decisiones ni siquiera son legalmente vinculantes.

Sin embargo, el G-8 tiene un punto particularmente fuerte: ofrece a los líderes más poderosos del mundo la posibilidad de asumir una responsabilidad personal en relación con cuestiones de importancia mundial y de adquirir compromisos, de manera creciente con los líderes de las potencias industriales en desarrollo, ante retos que nos afectan a todos. La Cumbre de esta semana no será diferente, y en ella se abordará, en particular, un tema que exige una atención urgente: la seguridad del abastecimiento energético.

El mundo ha entrado en una nueva era energética, dominada por una demanda internacional de energía en aumento y unos precios del petróleo y el gas elevados y volátiles, a lo que hay que sumar el desafío del cambio climático. Si tomamos el ejemplo de Europa, veremos que las cifras relatan la historia de una transformación en nuestro paisaje energético. En los dos últimos años, los precios del petróleo y el gas casi se han duplicado. Se prevé que la dependencia europea de las importaciones habrá aumentado al 70% en 2030. Toda la cadena energética mundial padece las consecuencias de una inversión insuficiente: en los próximos 20 años harán falta más de dieciséis billones de euros para satisfacer la demanda prevista de energía y reemplazar las infraestructuras que van quedando anticuadas.

Así pues, acojo con agrado la decisión del presidente Putin de otorgar a la seguridad del abastecimiento energético la máxima prioridad en la agenda de la Presidencia rusa del G-8. La mayoría de los países por los que más energía transita y que más energía consumen y producen están incluidos en el G-8. Todos deberían tener interés en promover un mercado energético mundial seguro y estable y unas condiciones equilibradas de participación.

La seguridad del abastecimiento energético no se consigue resolviendo apresuradamente los problemas según van surgiendo. Es necesaria una visión global de la cadena de energía, desde la producción hasta el consumo, y ello abarca cuestiones tales como la diversificación de las fuentes de energía -incluidas las renovables y la nuclear, para los que deseen disponer de ella-, el tránsito, la eficacia energética, la apertura de los mercados, unas tecnologías energéticas limpias y unos entornos reglamentarios eficaces.

Lo que necesitamos es un marco de principios comúnmente acordados que ayude a orientar a todas las partes interesadas y que genere una verdadera interdependencia basada en la confianza mutua. Este marco fomentaría la emergencia en el mundo de un clima seguro y transparente para la inversión y de unos mercados eficaces y competitivos. Ambas cosas son esenciales si queremos activar la inversión masiva que hará falta en el sector energético durante las próximas décadas.

La UE está poniéndose a la cabeza en este ámbito. A principios de año, la Comisión Europea propuso a los gobiernos europeos un nuevo marco energético al que éstos respondieron positivamente, primero en su Cumbre de marzo, invitando a la Comisión Europea a que desarrollara una política energética para Europa, y luego, el mes pasado, acordando un conjunto de principios para la seguridad exterior del abastecimiento energético, a fin de asegurarse de que las relaciones exteriores de la UE contribuyen plenamente a los objetivos energéticos de Europa. Estos principios constituyeron la base del acuerdo alcanzado el mes pasado en la Cumbre UE-EE UU para reforzar la cooperación estratégica transatlántica en materia de energía e iniciar un diálogo de alto nivel con el fin de abordar el serio reto a largo plazo que constituye el cambio climático.

Los retos energéticos del siglo XXI no se detienen en las fronteras de Europa. La seguridad del abastecimiento energético es un reto mundial que exige soluciones mundiales, y es precisamente ahí donde radica la importancia del G-8: debemos mostrar el camino y comprometernos con un nuevo marco de principios que permita a todas las naciones contribuir al objetivo común de disponer de una energía fiable, asequible y sostenible.

Mientras nos centramos en la energía no debemos perder de vista otro desafío a largo plazo al que se enfrenta nuestro mundo: acabar con la pobreza extrema. Debemos obtener resultados en relación con el principal logro de la Cumbre del G-8 el pasado año en Gleneagles: un conjunto exhaustivo de medidas para acelerar el progreso de África hacia la consecución de los Objetivos de Desarrollo del Milenio.

También en este ámbito la UE ha adoptado un papel central, acordando duplicar la ayuda para 2010 hasta proporcionar el 80% de los 50.000 millones de euros que se prometieron a África en Gleneagles; y mediante el progresivo cumplimiento de nuestro compromiso para que todos los productos, excepto las armas, provenientes de los 50 países más pobres del mundo entren en la UE sin derechos ni contingentes.

Pero tenemos que seguir cumpliendo nuestras promesas. Por eso, Europa ha impulsado este año el programa para el desarrollo, prometiendo facilitar a los países más pobres el acceso a la energía; intensificando la lucha contra enfermedades como el sida, la tuberculosis y la malaria, que caen con tan desproporcionado y mortífero peso sobre África; y respaldando nuevas formas de cooperación educativa entre los países en desarrollo y entre éstos y los países desarrollados. De esta forma, los líderes del G-8 no se limitarán a esperar acontecimientos, sino que acelerarán el cambio. Nosotros otorgaremos al desarrollo la importancia central que merece en la problemática mundial.

********************

Par José Manuel Barroso, président de la Commission européenne (LE FIGARO, 11/07/06):

Quelle est la finalité du G 8 ? Ce week-end, les dirigeants des huit plus grandes démocraties du monde industrialisé ainsi que le premier ministre finlandais, M. Vanhanen, et moi-même, au nom de l’Union européenne, allons nous rencontrer lors du Sommet du G 8 à Saint-Pétersbourg. Réunissant uniquement l’UE et huit pays autour de la table sur les 192 membres des Nations unies, celui-ci n’est guère représentatif. Le G 8 n’est pas non plus un groupe de négociation. Lorsque ses membres parviennent à un consensus, leurs décisions ne sont même pas juridiquement contraignantes. Le G 8 possède pourtant un atout formidable. Il permet aux dirigeants les plus puissants de ce monde d’assumer une responsabilité personnelle vis-à-vis des enjeux internationaux, de prendre des engagements sur les défis planétaires qui nous concernent tous, et cela de plus en plus avec les responsables des nouvelles puissances industrielles. Le sommet qui se déroulera cette semaine ne différera pas des précédents, une attention urgente devant notamment être accordée à une question précise : la sécurité énergétique. Concernant la politique énergétique, nous sommes entrés dans une nouvelle ère, caractérisée par la hausse de la demande mondiale d’énergie, le niveau élevé et la volatilité des prix du pétrole et du gaz et le défi que constitue le changement climatique. Prenez l’exemple de l’Europe : les chiffres reflètent l’évolution de notre paysage énergétique. Les prix du gaz et du pétrole ont quasiment doublé ces deux dernières années. D’ici à 2030, l’Europe devrait devenir dépendante à 70 % de ses importations. La totalité de la chaîne énergétique mondiale pâtit d’un sous-investissement : plus de 16 000 milliards de dollars seront nécessaires au cours des vingt prochaines années pour que nous puissions satisfaire à la demande énergétique prévue et remplacer nos infrastructures vieillissantes.

Je me réjouis donc de la décision prise par le président Poutine de faire de la sécurité énergétique la première des priorités des travaux de la présidence russe du G 8. Le G 8 comprend en effet la plupart des grands pays qui consomment et produisent l’énergie et par lesquels elle transite. Tous devraient avoir intérêt à favoriser un marché de l’énergie sûr et stable où chacun est soumis aux mêmes règles. Néanmoins, ce n’est pas en réagissant au coup par coup que nous assurerons la sécurité énergétique. Nous devons examiner l’ensemble de la chaîne, de la production à la consommation, en nous attachant par exemple à la diversification des sources d’énergie proposées, dont les énergies renouvelables et l’énergie nucléaire, pour ceux qui le souhaitent, à la question du transport, à l’efficacité énergétique, à l’ouverture des marchés, aux énergies propres et à la mise en place d’un environnement réglementaire efficace. Nous avons besoin d’un cadre fondé sur des principes communément reconnus, qui serve de référence à la totalité des parties concernées et crée une véritable interdépendance reposant sur une confiance mutuelle. Un tel cadre encouragerait l’apparition sur la scène internationale d’un climat favorable à des investissements sûrs et transparents, tout en stimulant le bon fonctionnement des marchés et la concurrence. Ces deux aspects sont essentiels pour que le secteur de l’énergie puisse bénéficier des investissements massifs dont il aura besoin au cours des décennies à venir.

L’UE prend les devants. Cette année, la Commission européenne a proposé un nouveau cadre énergétique aux gouvernements européens. Leur réaction a été positive puisque, dans un premier temps, lors de leur sommet de printemps, ils ont invité la Commission européenne à élaborer une politique énergétique pour l’Europe, puis, le mois dernier, ont convenu d’un ensemble de principes sur la sécurité énergétique extérieure qui doivent garantir la pleine contribution des relations extérieures de l’UE à ses objectifs énergétiques. Ces principes soustendent l’accord conclu le mois dernier, au cours du sommet UEÉtats- Unis, dont le but est de renforcer la coopération stratégique transatlantique et d’amorcer un dialogue de haut niveau sur le changement climatique et l’enjeu majeur qu’il constitue à long terme.

Cependant, le problème de l’énergie en ce XXIe siècle ne s’arrête pas aux frontières de l’Europe. La sécurité énergétique est un défi pour tous les pays et requiert donc des solutions à l’échelle de la planète. C’est justement là que le G 8 a un rôle à jouer, nous devons montrer la voie et nous engager sur un nouvel ensemble de principes grâce auquel toutes les nations pourront contribuer à l’objectif commun, à savoir disposer de sources d’énergie fiables et durables, à un coût raisonnable. L’attention que nous portons à l’énergie ne doit pas nous faire oublier un autre défi à long terme pour la planète : l’éradication de l’extrême pauvreté. Nous devons traduire dans les faits l’avancée cruciale réalisée lors du sommet du G 8, l’année dernière à Gleneagles, soit la définition d’un ensemble complet de mesures visant à accélérer la progression de l’Afrique vers les objectifs du millénaire pour le développement. Là aussi, l’UE a joué un rôle central en décidant de doubler son aide d’ici à 2010 pour apporter 80 % des 50 milliards de dollars promis à l’Afrique à Gleneagles et en mettant progressivement en oeuvre son engagement de laisser entrer sur son territoire, sans droits de douane ou quotas, tous les produits, à l’exception des armes, en provenance des 50 pays les plus démunis de la planète. Nous devons continuer à tenir nos promesses. Voilà pourquoi l’Europe a mis cette année l’accent sur le développement, en promettant de faciliter l’accès des pays les plus pauvres à l’énergie, en renforçant la lutte contre certaines maladies comme le sida, la tuberculose ou la malaria, dont les répercussions en Afrique sont tellement disproportionnées et dévastatrices, en soutenant de nouvelles formes de coopération en matière d’éducation parmi les pays en voie de développement et entre ceux-ci et les pays développés. Grâce à ces actions, les dirigeants du G 8 ne se contenteront pas de suivre le cours des choses, ils accéléreront le changement. Nous maintiendrons ainsi le développement au coeur des préoccupations de la planète, soit à la place qui lui revient.

The official agenda for this weekend’s Group of Eight summit of leading industrial countries in St Petersburg includes action on energy security, global education and disease pandemics. But for the summit’s host, President Vladimir Putin, the overriding aim is to confirm post-Soviet Russia’s re-emergence as a global player deserving of a place at the top table.

“What Putin really wants is for Russia to be recognised as a power in its own right, not relying or dependent on the US, China or the EU,” said Jennifer Moll, a Russia expert with the Risk Advisory Group. “The increasing assertiveness of Russia’s foreign policy and the push to join the World Trade Organisation are evidence of this. For Putin, the summit is about dispelling old notions of the G7 plus one. It’s about great power status.”

Mr Putin’s bullish mood looks justified. Russia’s economy has grown annually by an average 6% since 1999. As a financial analyst, Andrew Rozanov, recently pointed out for the Chatham House thinktank, Russia is now the world’s 12th largest economy. It has a trade surplus of more than $120bn (£65bn), a budget surplus of 7.5% of GDP and reserves in excess of $300bn.

Most of this new-found wealth, and the Kremlin’s resulting political confidence, flows from energy exports. Russia is the world’s second largest oil producer and has an estimated 65% of global natural gas reserves. Last winter brought a glimpse of what that means when Ukraine’s gas supplies were temporarily cut, causing panic further west. As in the cold war, Russian tanks are poised on Europe’s borders – but now the tanks contain oil, not gun crews.

Despite accusations of of anti-democratic tendencies, Mr Putin’s personal popularity is unmatched by his G8 guests. His approval rating is roughly twice that of George Bush or Tony Blair. And despite growing NGO and opposition criticism at home, many Russians seem to admire his readiness to challenge US global leadership assumptions.

On North Korea’s missiles tests, on Iran’s nuclear ambitions, on Hamas’s control of the Palestinian Authority, and on Darfur, Mr Putin has consistently blocked or sidestepped US-led moves towards punitive action. On Kosovo, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine, his position is often seen as unhelpful. These issues, plus Russia’s poor human and civil rights record, could make for an indigestible dinner when he and Mr Bush meet privately on Friday evening. The fact that they are unlikely to be resolved only underscores Moscow’s strengthening self-belief.

Yet old, familiar Russian paranoia still makes Moscow a touchy partner. “To be honest, not everyone was ready to see Russia begin to restore its economic health and its position on the international stage so rapidly,” Mr Putin said last month. “Some still perceive us through the prism of past prejudices … and see a strong, reinvigorated Russia as a threat.” Nato’s eastward expansion is set in this context; so, too, is European reluctance to open downstream energy business to Russian companies.

Dmitri Trenin of the Carnegie Moscow Centre said the US had made a strategic mistake in assuming that post-Soviet Russia could be drawn, or tethered, within the west’s orbit. “Now it has left that orbit entirely. Russia’s leaders have given up on becoming part of the west and have started creating their own Moscow-centred system,” he wrote in Foreign Affairs magazine. On issues such as Iran, “Russia will continue essentially to share western goals while opposing western (and especially US) hardline policies”.

Mr Putin was not seeking confrontation at the G8 summit, Ms Moll said. But nor was the meeting likely to achieve a consensus or, indeed, much at all. “He doesn’t want to be seen as an energy hawk threatening other people. He does want to do things his own way,” she said. As a result, increasing friction was likely while Mr Bush remained in office. “We need some new thinking in Washington.”

Does Russia really belong in the Group of Eight — the assembly of the world’s leading industrialized democracies? As things stand today, it meets only one criterion for membership: the size of its economy. So far as political rights are concerned, Russia ranks 168th out of 192 countries, according to Freedom House. In terms of corruption, the organization Transparency International ranks Russia 126th out of 159 countries. The World Economic Forum calculates that when it comes to favoritism in governmental decisions, Russia rates 85th of 108 countries, in protection of property rights 88th of 108 and in independence of the judicial system 84th out of 102.

The principal difference between the original G-7 countries and Russia lies in their disparate approaches to nearly every essential issue on the global agenda. Russia pursues “wars” against its neighbors on matters relating to visas, electricity, natural gas, wine and now even mineral waters.

Russia’s official media have whipped up propaganda against the hard-won democratic road chosen by Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia, as well as against the Baltic countries, Europe and the United States. These countries became the enemies in the new “cold war” being waged by Russia’s authorities. At the same time, new friends have emerged in the leaders of Belarus, Uzbekistan, Iran, Algeria, Venezuela, Burma and Hamas — a very different sort of G-8.

The question now occupying the minds of leaders of the G-7 countries is whether to participate in the upcoming G-8 summit in St. Petersburg. Idealists have proposed a boycott. Pragmatists oppose that approach. In either case, a bad outcome is inevitable.

Pragmatists proposed to include in the agenda a discussion of “energy security” and another attempt to persuade the Russian government to accept universal democratic values. But it would be naive to expect substantial results on these two points.

The Russian authorities have already demonstrated how they understand energy security. Instead of liberalization and privatization of energy assets, they are opting for nationalization of private companies, the cementing of state control over the electricity grid and pipeline system and, on the international scene, efforts to use non-market methods to manage international energy resources. Is this something the world’s leading democracies are ready to accept?

Who really thinks that Russian authorities are going to undergo radical change after listening to the G-7 leaders? Will they cease their destruction of civil society? Reverse antidemocratic laws adopted in recent years? Allow free and fair campaigns and elections in 2007 and ’08? Give up control over the judicial system or the media? Return fired journalists and editors to their posts? Cease interfering in business? Refund confiscated property and fines levied against citizens and companies? Return billions of dollars of state assets? Launch investigations into bureaucrats, judges and prosecutors who have made illegal decisions?

In fact, the G-8 is not the place to clarify codes of conduct. The very suggestion that foreign leaders might feel the need to speak “frankly” about Russia’s domestic affairs confirms that Russia is not considered a full-fledged member of the G-8 even by those who intend to come.

Leaders may go to St. Petersburg for various reasons. But what is most important is the way in which the summit will be perceived and how it will be used. The G-8 summit can only be interpreted as a sign of support by the world’s most powerful organization for Russia’s leadership — as a stamp of approval for its violations of individual rights, the rule of law and freedom of speech, its discrimination against nongovernmental organizations, nationalization of private property, use of energy resources as a weapon, and aggression toward democratically oriented neighbors.

By going to St. Petersburg, leaders of the world’s foremost industrialized democracies will demonstrate their indifference to the fate of freedom and democracy in Russia. They will provide the best possible confirmation of what the Russian authorities never tire of repeating: that there are no fundamental differences between Western and Russian leaders. Like us, Russia’s leaders will say, they are interested only in appearing to care about the rights of individuals and market forces; like us, they only talk about freedom and democracy. The G-8 summit will serve as an inspiring example for today’s dictators and tomorrow’s tyrants.

True Russian patriots favor Russia’s membership in the G-8 — but a free, democratic, peaceful and prosperous Russia. Regardless of how the St. Petersburg summit proceeds, one thing is already clear: The G-8, as a club of advanced democratic states, will cease to exist. The summit has only hastened its demise. Perhaps it will be reborn later as the G-7, G-4, G-3 or some other entity — for Russia this question is academic. There won’t be a place in the new club for today’s Russia.

Close your eyes and say it out loud: “G-8.” Let the two syllables run across your tongue again: “gee-eight.” What images drift into your brain?

If you are like most Americans, I suspect that this simple psychological experiment will produce something like, “stuffy statesmen, boring meeting, prepackaged conclusions.” Or maybe, “screaming protesters, riot police, prepackaged slogans.” Or even, “turn the page and read something else.”

Maybe it isn’t surprising. After all, the Group of Eight, once known as the Group of Seven, started life as a private meeting between the leaders of the world’s largest industrial democracies. Off the record, they discussed the economic and political problems of the day. The only “message” produced was a statement to the effect that inflation was bad and oil prices were high.

Over the years, the G-8 evolved. Even as it came to mean less and less to Americans, it meant more and more to others. The Japanese, seeing the G-8 as a substitute for the U.N. Security Council they’ll never join, spent lavishly, racking up a $750 million bill last time they hosted. The Europeans, leaping on the chance to set the international agenda, chose elaborate, crowd-pleasing “themes” to do with aid or technology. African, Latin American and Middle Eastern leaders showed up to bask in the reflected limelight. The Russian president, Boris Yeltsin, was allowed first to attend meetings and then to join, on the muddled grounds that making him a member, despite his country’s lack of qualifications, would magically turn Russia into one of the world’s largest democracies, too. It did not.

But now, having acquired ludicrous levels of significance and symbolism, the institution faces a genuine crisis. In July, the organization is going to meet for the first time under Russian leadership, in Russian President Vladimir Putin’s hometown of St. Petersburg. And for the first time, a G-8 summit could produce, along with the bland communique, a political backlash harmful to all.

For by going to St. Petersburg, President Bush, Prime Minister Tony Blair, President Jacques Chirac, and the leaders of Italy, Germany, Canada and Japan will in effect place their stamp of approval on the removal of political rights, the harassment of independent groups, the renationalization of energy and the censorship of media that Putin has imposed on his country since he took over from Yeltsin six years ago. They will also give their blessing to Putin’s use of gas pipelines to threaten Ukraine, and to his ambiguous role in Iranian nuclear and Middle East peace negotiations. And after Bush goes home, the denizens of the Kremlin — along with Venezuelans, Iranians, Arab leaders and others around the world — will sit back, laugh and agree that the leaders of the so-called West merely pay lip service to the ideals of freedom and democracy; they don’t really believe in them. If you have enough oil, they’ll let you into their clubs anyway. The long-term result: The American president’s ability to speak credibly about democracy and political freedom will be irreparably damaged.

Perhaps you think it ridiculous to sound so apocalyptic about a meeting that most Americans find too boring to read about. But don’t listen to me, listen to Andrei Illarionov, an economic adviser to Putin before he resigned last year in disgust. Illarionov says that Putin invariably returns from G-8 meetings feeling strengthened and empowered in his political course — and it is true that Putin’s opponents have been arrested or put on trial in a summit’s wake. He also says the G-8 is taken deadly seriously in Russia, and shrugs when told that Americans don’t much care one way or the other. “What is important is not how you, in the U.S., view the G-8. You have to think how your participation will be viewed and used in the world.” Nor does it matter that U.S. leaders have always met with Russian dictators, since, to the Russians and to others, this is much different from a bilateral meeting: “There is no case in previous history when you endorsed such policies at such a level, at the G-8 level.”

I should explain that Illarionov is in Washington this week for a conference. I should also add that he says he’s been surprised by how many people, both here and in Russia, have asked whether he’s really returning to Moscow afterward — “will you dare go back” being a question that no one even considered asking five years ago. It is tragic but true: Russia has once again become a place where blunt-speaking economists have to watch their backs.

There is still time: President Bush has four months to decide whether he wants to endorse this new Russia, four months to decide whether he wants to bestow on Putin the full approval of the West’s most prestigious club, four months to decide whether he will destroy what remains of his credibility as a promoter of democracy and human rights. He can mitigate the damage — he can stop in Vilnius or Kiev on the way, he can declare his faith in freedom to his Russian hosts — but neither the Kremlin, nor the other opponents of democracy around the world, will care. All they will remember is that he was there.

Al comenzar el año 2006, Rusia ha asumido la presidencia del G-8. Somos muy conscientes de la importancia de este trabajo y de la amplitud de semejante responsabilidad. No es que nos espere demasiada labor organizativa, lo importante es que tendremos que proponer a nuestros colegas las líneas prioritarias de este foro prestigioso, que desde hace más de 30 años representa uno de los mecanismos clave para armonizar el enfoque de los problemas más importantes del desarrollo mundial.

Hemos propuesto a nuestros socios concentrar la atención en tres importantes temas de la actualidad: la seguridad energética global, la lucha contra las enfermedades infecciosas y la educación. Estas prioridades están encaminadas a un objetivo: elevar la calidad y el nivel de vida de las personas, tanto de la presente generación como de las venideras.

Sin duda, una de las tareas estratégicas del G-8 y, en general, de toda la comunidad internacional es crear un sistema eficaz y universal de seguridad energética. El complejo industrial-energético global es el más importante motor del progreso económico-social y ejerce una influencia directa sobre el bienestar de miles de millones de habitantes del planeta. Nuestra intención es que durante la presidencia rusa resulte posible no sólo elaborar los principios básicos para superar los problemas actuales del sector, sino también acordar una política común para el futuro.

La inestabilidad del mercado de hidrocarburos representa una amenaza real para el suministro energético global. Aumenta, en particular, la brecha entre la demanda y la oferta. Es evidente el aumento del consumo de recursos energéticos en Asia. Y no solamente los altibajos de la coyuntura económica provocan la inestabilidad, sino también toda una serie de causas de índole política y de seguridad. Para nivelar la situación es necesario un trabajo concertado de toda la comunidad internacional.

Como punto de partida de su nueva política, los principales países del mundo deberían reconocer que puesto que la industria energética se ha convertido en global, la seguridad energética es indivisible. Un destino energético global supone una responsabilidad, unos riesgos y unas ventajas comunes.

Creemos que es particularmente importante crear una estrategia para alcanzar una seguridad energética global. Debería basarse sobre los principios de un suministro a largo plazo eficaz, ecológicamente sostenible y a precios razonables tanto para los países exportadores como para los consumidores. Habría que determinar qué medidas concretas son necesarias para garantizar a la economía mundial un suministro estable de recursos energéticos tradicionales, y para que los programas de ahorro energético y de promoción de las fuentes alternativas de energía se pongan en práctica más activamente.

Un suministro de energía equilibrado y regular es sin duda uno de los factores de un mundo seguro. Por esto es tan importante edificar una base energética de nuestra civilización que sea eficaz y duradera.

En este contexto, Rusia se pronuncia a favor de una interacción más estrecha entre el G-8 y toda la comunidad internacional para el desarrollo de las tecnologías de innovación. Para la humanidad podría ser una primera etapa en la creación de una base tecnológica de ahorro energético para el futuro, cuando el potencial energético en su forma actual esté agotado.

El año pasado en Gleaneagles, el G-8 dio pasos importantes en esta dirección. Se trata sobre todo de la adopción del plan de acción cuyo objetivo es fomentar las innovaciones, el ahorro energético y la protección del medio ambiente. Consideramos que es particularmente importante que a las iniciativas del G-8, y en particular en lo que se refiere a la aplicación del documento aprobado en Gleaneagles, se incorporen los países que no son miembros del G-8, y en primer lugar los Estados que tienen altos índices de crecimiento e industrialización.

No hay que olvidar que hoy día unos 2.000 millones de habitantes del planeta no reciben servicios energéticos modernos. Muchos de ellos ni siquiera tienen energía eléctrica. Muchos de los bienes y logros de la civilización están fuera de su alcance. Últimamente los expertos discuten si existen posibilidades de aumentar el consumo energético en los países en vías de desarrollo a través de una explotación más activa de las fuentes alternativas. Por ello, la ayuda del G-8 a la creación y aplicación de generadores alternativos adquiere particular actualidad.

Es necesario comprender y reconocer colectivamente que el egoísmo energético en el contemporáneo mundo interdependiente es una vía sin salida. Como consecuencia, la posición de Rusia en materia de seguridad energética es firme e invariable. Estamos profundamente convencidos de que una redistribución de energía que fuera favorable a los intereses de un pequeño grupo de países industrializados no respondería a los objetivos y las tareas de un desarrollo global. Vamos a intentar crear un sistema de seguridad energética que tenga en cuenta los intereses de toda la comunidad internacional. La cooperación internacional puede hacer realidad un suministro energético estable y suficiente para cada Estado.

A lo largo de toda su historia, la humanidad se ha visto obligada a luchar contra una amenaza real para su propia supervivencia: la propagación de enfermedades infecciosas. Los logros del progreso infunden esperanzas: la viruela ha sido desarraigada, la lucha contra la poliomielitis se encuentra en una etapa final. Pero hoy aún tenemos que hacer frente a brotes de enfermedades ya conocidas, así como a brotes de enfermedades nuevas y extremadamente peligrosas como el sida, las exóticas fiebres virales hemorrágicas, las infecciones microplásmicas o la gripe aviar. Las enfermedades infecciosas son hoy la causa de un tercio de las muertes en el mundo. Y según los expertos, se mantiene la probabilidad de un brote en los próximos años de una nueva gripe pandémica, capaz de cobrarse millones de vidas.

Rusia propone activar las labores en este sector, y en particular un plan de acciones del G-8 en la lucha contra la gripe aviar y en la prevención de una gripe pandémica humana.

El G-8 no puede y no debe permanecer ajeno a problemas de envergadura como la lucha contra las enfermedades infecciosas. Éstas, al propagarse con diferente intensidad en diferentes partes del mundo, son un claro indicio de los problemas sociales y económicos, refuerzan la desigualdad social y contribuyen a la discriminación. Es particularmente grave el problema de las personas seropositivas o las que han contraído otras enfermedades peligrosas, que prácticamente viven excluidas, enfrentadas no sólo a la propia enfermedad, sino también a la dificultad de adaptarse a una vida normal en sociedad.

En los últimos años, la humanidad también sufre con frecuencia la fuerza destructiva de los terremotos, las inundaciones, los tsunami. La urbanización y la ampliación de las redes de transporte y las infraestructuras industriales nos hacen mucho más vulnerables que antes frente a estas calamidades, que no sólo causan considerables estragos económicos y sociales, sino que provocan -y es lo más terrible- brotes de enfermedades infecciosas que se cobran miles de vidas. Por esto vemos como otra prioridad la creación de un sistema global de prevención de las consecuencias epidemiológicas de las catástrofes naturales y de lucha contra tales consecuencias.

Podríamos pensar también en la posibilidad de crear una infraestructura única, capaz de reaccionar a tiempo al brote y a la propagación de epidemias. Semejante infraestructura debería incluir un sistema de vigilancia y de intercambio de información y de metodologías científicas, un sistema capaz de reaccionar de modo operativo frente a situaciones de emergencia.

Las llamadas crisis humanitarias, en particular las vinculadas a conflictos bélicos, son también causa de enfermedades masivas. Una de sus consecuencias es que aumenta la posibilidad de brotes epidémicos. Estoy convencido de que el G-8 es capaz de consolidar los esfuerzos internacionales ante semejantes emergencias y dar un fuerte impulso a la colaboración multilateral en este sector.

Seria atención requieren nuestras tareas comunes en la esfera de la educación. En la sociedad posindustrial e informática la educación se convierte en un factor imprescindible de éxito personal y, a la vez, en un recurso importante del desarrollo económico. La educación es uno de los factores más importantes de la formación de la conciencia social, de los valores éticos y del fortalecimiento de la democracia. Además, a medida que las tecnologías se perfeccionan, el mercado laboral prefiere expertos siempre más cualificados, lo que supone que las exigencias educativas sean siempre más altas. Como consecuencia, cambian los objetivos y el contenido mismo del sistema de educación. Hoy día, cada persona, más que tener una simple suma de conocimientos y experiencias, necesita estar siempre lista para aumentarlos y adaptarlos a nuevas exigencias.

Al mismo tiempo, en muchos países y muchas regiones hasta la misma posibilidad de adquirir un nivel educativo elemental sigue siendo todavía un grave problema, que consideramos una verdadera catástrofe humanitaria, una seria amenaza para la comunidad internacional. El analfabetismo masivo constituye un ambiente que nutre a los ideólogos del choque de civilizaciones, la propaganda xenófoba, los extremismos nacionalistas y religiosos y, a fin de cuentas, el terrorismo internacional.

Por esto es importante elaborar un enfoque más amplio y sistemático de la educación, tanto en países en vías de desarrollo como en el mundo en general. En particular, habría que tener en cuenta que para resolver con éxito el problema de la ocupación laboral, el mismo concepto de educación debería suponer no solamente la formación básica, sino también la técnico-profesional.

Cuando, como hoy, aumentan los procesos migratorios, adquiere particular importancia el problema de la integración en otros ambientes culturales. Es precisamente la educación la que es capaz de garantizar una recíproca adaptación social de diferentes grupos culturales, étnicos y religiosos. Hay que darle, pues, una atención particular a la modernización de los sistemas educativos tanto en los países desarrollados como en los en vías de desarrollo.

Muchos de estos últimos tienen serios problemas con la aplicación de métodos educativos y tecnologías informativas de vanguardia. Habría que utilizar de manera más eficaz los recursos más modernos, como Internet. En noviembre del pasado año, este tema fue objeto en Túnez de una discusión fructífera, cuyos resultados estamos analizando con atención para poder plasmarlos en la realidad.

Rusia está dispuesta a contribuir a la unificación de los esfuerzos de la comunidad internacional para aumentar el nivel y la compatibilidad de las exigencias de la educación profesional. La competitividad de las economías nacionales depende directamente de la medida en que las instituciones educativas reaccionan a las exigencias de los sectores de alta tecnología.

Además de estas tres prioridades en la agenda de la presidencia rusa del G-8 en 2006, seguiremos trabajando en otros temas fundamentales como la lucha contra el terrorismo internacional y contra la propagación de armas de destrucción masiva. El G-8 seguirá ocupándose de la cooperación al desarrollo, la prevención de la degradación del ambiente medio y las cuestiones de actualidad de la economía mundial, las finanzas y el comercio. Y como siempre, nuestros esfuerzos se centrarán en buscar la solución a conflictos regionales, en primer lugar Oriente Próximo e Irak, y en la estabilización de Afganistán.

Nos damos perfectamente cuenta de que el país que asume la presidencia no puede dar en solitario respuestas exhaustivas a los problemas del mundo contemporáneo que se discuten en el G-8. No obstante, de cumbre en cumbre, gracias a una labor colectiva, el G-8 tiene una visión cada vez más clara de estos problemas y busca encontrar las medidas más eficaces para su solución.

Rusia está dispuesta a contribuir activamente para avanzar en este camino. Continuidad y evolución: éste es el lema de la presidencia rusa que acaba de empezar.

In his recent State of the Union speech George Bush reiterated his commitment to the “historic long-term goal” of spreading democracy. Visiting India he has an opportunity to move that agenda forward. He can start the process of enlarging G8 by admitting India.

The creation of G9 by 2007 by including the largest democracy in the world would recognise the significant moves that India has made, since Rajiv Ghandi became Prime Minister in 1984, towards becoming a leading market economy. It would also help to strengthen multilateralism at a time of great weakness.

Why the G8? To start off with, in 2005 an alternative idea of enlarging the permanent membership of the UN Security Council to include India along with Japan, Germany and Brazil and a representative country from Africa was blocked. It is likely to remain so for the foreseeable future. Of course the G8 does not have, nor should it pretend to have, a function as broadly based and as internationally recognised as that of the Security Council. Yet its informality and focus are also strengths. It represents, in essence, the power base of the democratic open-market economic world.

The origin of the G8 was an informal meeting of a Group of Six of the most industrialised countries, held at Rambouillet near Paris in 1975 under the chairmanship of President Giscard d’Estaing. Since then the group has avoided institutionalisation. It has no central secretariat or formal structure. Crucially, membership is not immutable. A country that moves away from the founding principles of democracy and the market economy can simply not be invited to attend in the future.

Some believe that the G7 moved too quickly to admit Russia in 2002. But President Clinton was right to reward President Yeltsin, and he could do so safe in the knowledge that G8 membership could be a political constraining mechanism against Russia’s economic and democratic reforms sliding backwards.

The commitment to multilateralism that expansion would indicate is much needed and would be very timely. Multilateralism has taken a terrible knock in recent years. This can be attributed to two things. First, the UN — the great postwar embodiment of multilateralism — has appeared feeble and, worse, corrupt. Secondly, there is a widely held view that the US is no longer interested in multilateralism.

How would expanding the G8 help to get back to multilateralism? In the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq and the sharp disagreements about its legitimacy, the issue of multilateralism tends to be seen only in the context of military action. And the relationship between multilateralism and military action is, naturally, both very important and deeply vexed. But just as important are economic, trade, health, aid issues and global warming — and these were all on the agenda of the last G8 summit at Gleneagles.

There are other similar questions that the G8 will be dealing with in future meetings: vitally, how to improve the connection between existing global institutions and promote genuine multilateralism — for example, over energy security issues.

Looking beyond Indian entry, there is China. The Chinese currency is becoming ever more crucial and a G10 with China could help the IMF. On trade matters, WTO’s policies are already subject to prior discussion by a wider grouping in which China and Brazil are very influential. Given the impact of international travel, pandemics are already on the G8’s agenda with a dialogue with the World Health O rganisation; and China is a big focus for avian flu. On global warming, China is already the world’s second biggest emitter of greenhouse gases.

So in all these non-military issues, an expanded G8 would be beneficial. Yet reform is also needed to facilitate effective military multilateralsim. On dangerous and difficult peacekeeping missions, the only existing institution capable of hard military action, as we are seeing in Afghanistan, is Nato. However, it is not likely to take a larger role in Iraq. A way forward is, with Nato in the lead, to involve other big countries. Russia, for example, first became involved in Bosnia, then in Kosovo. Japan and Italy are already involved in Iraq with the US and UK without Nato. All six of Nato’s G8 countries have troops in Afghanistan.

So perhaps we are evolving an acceptable multilateral way of having Nato intervene credibly; a way that minimises opposition and where the informality of the structures offers the hope that necessary military intervention can be quickly deployed. Nato can become a “hard” peacekeeping resource for multilateral peacekeeping activities either under UN resolution or with UN Security Council acquiescence.

Where would all this leave the UN? In some people’s eyes, the diluting of the UN’s sole authority to instigate non-self-defence military action would be unacceptable. But the alternative is inaction. After the Rwandan genocide and Darfur, is that acceptable? Multilateral action by a large coalition was needed to eject Saddam Hussein from Kuwait in 1991 and the UN could not mount such an operation. The challenge is to work with the grain of the UN Charter if not always with its explicit authority.

Unless more effective multilateralism evolves, unilateralism will continue by default. With India now and China and Brazil later making a G11, President Bush can advance a new flexible, informal pattern of multilateralism in international affairs.