• Home
• /
• Opinion

From G-8 to G-5: A futile bid?

But Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh returned from Germany disappointed at being invited to the anteroom of the Rich Man's Club, not into the dining hall. He said: "We were not active participants... In fact, the G-8 communique was issued even before our meeting... [In future] we should get a chance to discuss issues of our concern..." He was upset at the resolution on climate change and nuclear non-proliferation, which differs from India's stance.

Eventually, Singh's message that "we have come here not as petitioners but as partners", fell flat.

Singh's reaction is markedly different from that in 2003, when India was first invited to a G-8 summit. Then, India's establishment was euphoric. It felt proud and gratified.

This has nothing to do with substantive summit-related issues. Earlier too, there was no prior consultation with India. So, either India's establishment has suddenly developed a strong urge to reform the skewed world order. Or it feels it's being denied its "rightful" place at the global High Table. However, India has itself consciously retreated from the agenda of reforming the world order. It wants to be accommodated in it— as a permanent member of a slightly expanded United Nations Security Council and "strategic partner" of the United States.

The second proposition too is unrealistic. With a rank of 126 in the UN Human Development Index, and with a GDP that's only 1/50 th of the global economy, India isn't an obvious candidate for the Rich Man's Club.

India was invited to the G-8 as an observer. Its place in the pecking order is different from, say, Russia's in 1998, when the G-7 invited it. This had to do with the end of the Cold War and the West's plan to bind Moscow down to capitalist policies. (However, Russia still doesn't act like a full-fledged G-8 member and doesn't participate in its financial and economic discussions.)

The G-8 is a private club — which is meant to exclude the bulk of the world, including all of Africa and Latin America, and most of Asia and Europe.

The G-8 comprises 14 per cent of the world's population and 61 per cent of its GDP. Its summits make extravagant promises on health, education, energy, employment, environment and human rights. Compliance with these is poor — and falling, especially on aid, health, and Africa.

The G-8 faces a serious credibility crisis. It promotes the narrow self-interest of the rich. It exercises disproportionate influence on the rules of the global governance system. It perpetuates the skewed global order. Take the IMF, for instance. Britain , with one per cent of world population, has more of the IMF's votes than all of sub-Saharan Africa, and the same as China and India together! The G-8 exercises a veto over the Fund and the World Bank.

Why India should want to join such a grouping passes comprehension. If India wants a just world order, it should demand radical democratising reform of the UN and Bretton Woods Institutions (IMF, World Bank and World Trade Organisation) to make them accountable to the world's peoples.

However, India has progressively moved away from these agendas, including fair trade, global nuclear disarmament and peaceful resolution of conflicts. It has weakened organisations that could provide some countervailing force against hegemonic powers, including the Non-Aligned Movement and the G-77.

Indian policy-makers privately ridicule these. They believe India belongs to a higher league . Three years ago, India signed, with Brazil, a patently one-sided WTO deal behind the backs of most developing countries. The Indian elite craves for a place at the High Table within an unbalanced world. This was brought out vividly in India's failed 2005 bid for a permanent Security Council seat.

India's elite has turned pro-US. The emerging India-US strategic alliance, and the nuclear deal of 2005, are part of India's pro-US re-alignment. But Indian policy-makers should know that India-US relations can't be equal or reciprocal. There's far too much asymmetry between the two.

The US has promised to "help India become a great power in the 21st century". But it doesn't believe the "American Century" is giving way to America's decline, or replacement by China or India. Condoleezza Rice said so on June 8 in New York. After Heilingendamm, India is groping for a G-5, with Brazil, China, Mexico and South Africa . The five account for 42 per cent of the world's population. Theoretically, they can create an alternative pole of attraction to the G-8.

The G-5 are growing economically and strategically. They represent three times more people than the G-8. However, their economic-political weight is limited. Together, they account for under $6,700 billion in GDP, about half of the US's $13,250. They can provide an alternative pole — only if they pursue different economic policies to the G-8's and advocate universal values.

If the G-5 speak for the world's citizens, they could acquire credibility. But they follow neoliberal policies and tail the West. None of them has a truly independent position vis-à-vis the US on Iraq, Israel or Iran. Leave alone representing the world, their leaders hardly represent their own people.

Three of their top leaders (Manmohan Singh, Lula da Silva and Thabo Mbeki) are neoliberal renegades from earlier agendas like the mixed economy. China's Hu Jintao is a Dengist and averse to rocking the boat until China "develops" herself. Mexico's President Calderon is a right-wing conservative accused of having stolen an election. He's slavishly pro-American on the economy and narcotics.

That's not the stuff of which reformers are made.

Praful Bidwai is a veteran Indian journalist and commentator. He can be reached at praful@bol.net.in