If you have been to Toronto, you must
have noticed that it lies on the shores of the vast and beautiful Lake
Ontario. On this eve of the G20, the Lake looks perhaps especially blue
and beautiful, as if with a vengeance, it seems to me. But this is not
the lake Canada's leaders want the world to see. As you may know, Premier
Harper and his men have built a fake lake - to adorn the 'marketing pavillion'
created especially for the summits. The 'puddle pool' - as some have called
it - and its accompaniments come at a cost of $2 million, over and above
the costs of militarization of downtown Toronto. Together, they add up
to over a billion dollars. As today's Toronto Star has calculated, this
is rather expensive 48 hour conversation costing the Canadian taxpayer
some $416,000 a minute.
This at a time, and in a city where visits to the food bank have crossed
the one million mark, and many working Canadians are increasingly faced
with a choice between food bills and rent. On the other hand, Canada's
big five banks have earned a 'modest' second quarter profit of $5.01 billion,
a slight drop from the first quarter's $5.09 billion.
Given this backdrop, Harper's fake lake dollars are well-spent, one might
argue. They have achieved exactly what he intended to achieve. The media
and the public are focused almost exclusively on the fake lake and Fortress
Toronto. There is endless talk of security - and fear-mongering about
''the protestors'', as if they were a class of aliens descending on the
city. Even more endless is the talk about the logistical difficulties
imposed upon downtown Toronto, which are real of course, but perhaps pale
in comparison with the difficulties the G20 is about to impose on the
globe.
It wouldn't have really mattered if we had to forego a concert, or a kid's
soccer practice, or take our dog on a different route to do her business,
if the G20 leaders appeared to us as real people with a relevant agenda.
But they don't.
The focus has therefore been quite successfully shifted away from any
substantive questions, and their apparent irrelevance is saving them from
having to engage their citizens on matters of substance.
Regarding that substance, there are two opinions that are doing the rounds.
One sees the G20 process as nothing short of a revolutionary, seismic
shift in the configuration of global power. The other sees it is as irrelevant,
because it is premised on the illusion of declining US power and the phony
rise of fake emerging powers.
Both are equally dangerous. The seismic shift hypothesis is dangerous
in that it assumes that the inequality of power between nations can change
without any change in social relations within nations. It refuses to see
how this 'gaining-a-seat-at-the-table' is a reflection of the compromises
national leaders are ready to make: compromises that involve actions their
citizens abhor.
The obvious example is the rejuvenation of the IMF and the World Bank
- at a time when the case for its demise or radical reform could not have
been stronger. Yes, there is a demand for voice reform to enhance the
voice of the executives of certain countries. But that will deliver little
to the people who have paid - and are still paying - for the IMF's draconian
policies. Not only is such a demand absent, the G20 leaders have 'underscored'
their 'resolve to ensure the IMF has the resources it needs so that it
can play its important role in the world economy'. And in addition, they
''will ask the World Bank to advise us on progress in promoting development
and poverty reduction as part of rebalancing of global growth.'' (The
Busan Communique)
None of this is unexpected perhaps. But this new legitimization of the
globally hated twin institutions by the G20 is not a trivial matter. Quite
apart from the implications for policy, it implies a deep democratic deficit
of the G20 vis-a-vis the people they collectively represent. As well,
it reveals the very specific interests the leaders of each country represent
at this key international policy forum.
The issue with the bank tax is a case in point. Given the clout of the
banking sector in Canada, it is hardly surprising that Harper's men went
around the world campaigning against it. India joined as its greatest
collaborator in this campaign, with the claim that regulation can do the
job. That regulation, which 'saved' India from the crisis, was the result
of hard-fought battle by bank unions and some sections of the public against
the reformers. Yet, the credit now is theirs. That aside, while on the
one hand regulation and divergent banking practices are touted as reasons
to shelve the bank tax, the G20 agenda is still geared to the Basel Committee
reforms without much change.
More importantly, there is no alternative at the table to bring bank profits
even minimally in line with their contribution to the economies from which
they make their money. In Canada, the financial sector takes 25% of profits
while employing only 6% of the workforce. The recession saw their shares
rise. Not surprisingly then, there is much anger in Canada about the banks.
What better forum than G20 and which better partner than India to protect
those interests?
The Conservatives' passion for protecting finance stands in stark contrast
with the attention to issues that matter most to common people. Food is
the most glaring instance. In the communiqué that came out of the
Busan meeting on June 5, food security features in only one of the nine
clauses. Dumped together with it in that single clause - are four issues
of prime import: food security and agriculture, financial inclusion, small
and medium enterprise and the cancellation of Haiti's debt. Aren't the
connections obvious?
Some astute Sherpa must have noticed those holes at the last minute and
rushed to close them.
What does all of this mean? Is the G20 not better than G1? Or G2? Or G8?
It is better in that it certainly holds greater potential - both for legitimizing
the 'illegitimizable' and for challenging power inequalities within and
between nations. Right now, one of those projects is winning.