Am I the only one who thinks the whole G-8 thing is useless?

[SoCalDem]

The press builds it up like it's a HUGE deal, and apparently it's just a 1 day 'gabfest' where everyone pretty much decides what they already had decided before the 'meeting'..

There's a multi-day 'lead-up', accompanied by lots of press and interviews, and then they meet for ONE stinking day, and suddenly all is right with the world:ugh:..

Meanwhile, thousands of people are inconvenienced, and other than a bunch of pictures, nothing happens:puke:

[tuvor]

1. I heard yesterday on the radio

that virtually all of the legwork has been done by underlings in advance of G8.

[SoCalDem]

2. Exactly.. so why even bother..

It's just an expensive, fuel-wasting photo-op.

[CitrusLib]

3. I do! I do!

I was listening to NPR on the way back to my office from lunch and they pretty much summed up what I'd guessed. It's an opportunity for a few world leaders to promise a bunch of stuff and then never follow through. What a freakin' waste.

[getmeouttahere]

4. BINGO was his name-o, SoCalDem....

lots of rhetoric, lots of lip-service paid, and to top it all off BushCo said BEFOREHAND that he had no intention of addressing climate change in any meaningful way. Not to mention that they probably put that and Africa on the back-burner, despite the pledge of aid. BTW, 50 billion seems like it could do an awful lot of good when you consider that my sponsored child gets $24 a month from me and the aid agency says it does a tremendous amount of good. So where are all those billions of dollars really going?

[KansDem]

5. Perhaps it's all part of a plan to show "leftist" demonstrators negatively

Sure, it's "all show" since everything's been decided, but imagine the P.R. prize for the establishment of all those news shows showing "leftist anarchists" acting wild and violent. Those viewing at home will wonder why all these violent leftist demonstrators are so angry with the nice, well-dressed world leaders.

[getmeouttahere]

6. Well, if they buy into that....

God/Allah/Buddha help us!

[Terran]

7. No, I do too.

It's all window dressing. They don't do a damn thing that couldn't be accomplished by telephone or video conferencing. And then, of course, they DO a DAMN thing anyway. Except mumble promises to each other.

[1932]

8. I suspect nothing they do is binding until they sign the agreements.

So, no. I think they did some good things at the G8, that it's important for them to talk to each other in person, and that things don't happen for real until they sign on the dotted line at the end of the conference.

I also think that this G8 conference actually achieved something important.

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. I'm not convinced that the leaders' meeting made much difference

Let's face it, if you were the American government, would you risk any negotiations with Dubya involved? No, you'd get it all agreed by competent people first. The aid figures were leaked a couple of days ago; the debt forgiveness was sorted out even earlier; nothing has happened about trade or climate change.

All the leaders' meeting does is provide photo-ops and a reason for getting the officials together first. For instance, a few days ago, the BBC reported the pre-summit climate change discussions, and said "well, this is what has been roughed out here, but it will have to wait while it goes back to Washington to the person who's actually in charge of American energy policy - Dick Cheney". There was no question of Bush giving any thought to it.

[1932]

12. I'm reading Naomi Klein's Windows and Fences.

In it she describes past G8s where every proposal to focus on the poor has been rejected, including debt relief and new aid proposals.

At this G8, FINALLY the issues that concerned globalization/neoliberalism protesters at all the previous G8s were on the table, discussed seriously, and progress was made FOR THE FIRST TIME on some of them (and the rest will inevitably happen too, and they got their start this year).

If not for the london bombings, the fact that the leaders got together, discussed these issues, and the media was forced to report on the issues would have been a powerful cultural moment that would never had happen if they didn't get together this way.

And I wonder if SoCalDem was bummed at previous G8s when nothing got done, but the protesters had a chance to bring their issues to the forefront. Was that a waste? Would SoCalDem prefer that protesters didn't have their chance to protest?

[SoCalDem]

14. I have NO issue with the protestors.. They are the BESTbpart of it

I just don't think the "hub-bub" preceding the whole thing is justified, sincve little is EVER accomplished..regardless of who is president, premier, president, etc..

To be substantive, the talks would need to be OPEN, televised (gavel to gavel), and BINDING..and they should last longer than a day

otherwise, why even bother?

[1932]

15. If it offers the chance for symbolic protest, like Seattle, et al., then

it also offers the opportunity for goverments to put forward important symbols when they do something right, such as debt relief, and new non-Washington Consensus/IMF Shock-Therapy condition aid.

It also focusses peoples attentions on the fact that some governments still are backwards-looking, like ours viz global warming.

As any Seattle protester would tell you, the biggest problem with the WTO and IMF and G8 is that these are places where decisions are made behind closed doors without have to confront public opinion. The more often these people are in front of cameras and confronting the public with their policy decisions, the better it is for everyone.

We don't need to push the G8 farther out of the consciousness of the public.

Don't you agree?

[SoCalDem]

16. If it was a week long conference with televised, PUBLIC attendance

there could be something constructive to come of it. but to have it cloistered and ONE DAY..is mocking what it pretends to do.That's all I meant:)

[1932]

17. Making these decisions without any conference so that no attention could

be focussed on them would be worse.

Anyway, I think it's obvious that they're worth something. For example, apparently the recent FTAA conference was a stalemate. They arrived, they talked, they wouldn't agree to turn this hemisphere into a a get-wealthier scheme only for the wealthy.

[Johonny]

10. I'm pretty sure

Great leaders can make things happen in meetings like this. CEO token heads however make meetings like this kinda useless. I think it's clear Tony Blair wanted more out of this meeting and the road block was the good old USA.

[Vladimir]

11. Not entirely useless

the protests, however co-opted by Bono, Geldoff and the rest of that band of hot-air merchants, showed that people in the UK and indeed around the world care a lot about these issues. The problem is that the best our governments can come up with is an elaborate reshuffling of aid money, with a bit of cancellation thrown in for those countries that are prepared to play by our rulebook. Africa does not need cancellation of debt, it needs Western govenrments to stop interfering in its affairs, and pay reparations for centuries of rape and pillage. Until our governments stop seeing Africa as a playground for neo-liberal restructuring and weapons companies, all the aid and debt write-offs in the world will ring hollow.

[Blue_Roses]

13. It looks like more of a photo op to put on the face of

"we are all friends" when you know most everyone in this picture is cussing under their breath as to why they have to be there...

[Octafish]

18. At the G-8 meeting in JULY 2001, Bush heard about Osama 'n' airplanes.

There's a use for most things: For me, G-8 summits always remind me of that July 2001 thing off Genoa. About six weeks before 9-11, Bush was attending his first G-8 summit in Genoa. There he learned firsthand about what a threat bin Laden was from the air. The poltroon wouldn't sleep in the hotel on-shore. Instead, he was aboard USN destroyer off-shore.

Plot to assassinate Bush - reports

Bin Laden: Believed to have a network of guerrillas

July 9, 2001 Posted: 9:23 AM EDT (1323 GMT)

MOSCOW, Russia -- Osama bin Laden has threatened to assassinate U.S. President George W. Bush at a G8 meeting in Italy, the head of Russia's Federal Bodyguard Service has said, according to reports.

The Associated Press said Yevgeny Murov was quoted by Itar-Tass news agency as saying: "Bin Laden is threatening the American president, but we know what international terrorism is today and therefore all the bodyguard units concerned are preparing for this.

"We view the threats as totally serious, but hope that with joint efforts we can solve all the problems."

The Group of Eight summit is meeting between July 20-22 in Genoa, Italy. Leaders from Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United States are expected to attend the summit.

Murov -- Russian President Vladimir Putin's chief bodyguard -- did not elaborate on the threats. He said agents from Russia's Federal Bodyguard Service have travelled to Genoa to coordinate with their counterparts from the other nations taking part in the summit to investigate the threats.

CONTINUED...

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/06/20/russia.binladen/

This lesson from the summer BEFORE 9-11 shows what many on DU know: Bush is a TRAITOR.