G20: Barred from the summit

[Albus]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/02/g20-international-aid-and-development

John Hilary
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 2 April 2009 15.53 BST

This blog was supposed to come to you from the inside of today's G20 summit. I was accredited to go into the Excel centre in London and write on events as they materialised, both as a Comment is free contributor and as a member of the Put People First coalition of over 150 civil society groups which has come together in preparation for the summit.

When I arrived at the security clearance tent on the dockside this morning, however, I was informed that the government had blocked both my accreditations. At first the explanation was that I had originally been accredited in error due to a computer glitch.

This had a "dog ate my homework" ring to it, so I pointed out that we had confirmed previously with officialdom that I was on the Put People First list. After a bit of pressing and a couple more phone calls, the government official in question admitted that my accreditations had indeed both been withdrawn and that I would not be allowed in.

The news was not entirely unexpected. Last night, my counterpart at the World Development Movement, Benedict Southworth, was informed that his accreditation had been withdrawn at the last minute – on the direct orders of No 10.

Both War on Want and the World Development Movement are known for being at the more critical end of civil society when it comes to the government's policy on international affairs. Other representatives from the Put People First coalition were allowed into the summit venue. Should we be smelling a rat here?

The government risks being seen as unbelievably petty if it has really decided only to allow non-critical civil society organisations to have access to major events such as the G20 summit. We know that Gordon Brown is keen for people to forget his role in having promoted the "light touch" version of free market capitalism, which has brought us to the current economic crisis. Yet would he really stoop to excluding people who might dare to recall this awkward fact?

More importantly, excluding critical voices means that there risks being less media coverage of what the G20 has omitted to do when it comes up with the statement to conclude its meeting. The "deal or no deal" fixation sets the summit up as a game show in which the only concern is whether all leaders can sign up to a joint communiqué. This is setting the bar almost as low as it can go.

Yet there are real issues which make the summit's outcome of long-term importance and which are conspicuous by their absence. Who will dare to question the legitimacy of the G20, which excludes over 170 countries from the debating chamber at a time when the UN is pressing for a more inclusive process? Who will question the wisdom of giving more power and more money to the IMF, which has shown itself an abject failure in previous crises and continues to impose damaging conditions on countries which turn to it for help?

And when everyone congratulates the G20 leaders for committing themselves (once again) to the rapid conclusion of the Doha round of world trade talks, who will point out that those talks are set to condemn millions more people to jobless poverty at a time when unemployment and destitution are already the order of the day?

[firefox28]

1. Funny

Given that the UK is so keen on combating climate change and providing foreign assistance, it's funny they would bar development related NGOs from this meeting.