Atlantic Community:Global Must Read Article "Let's Make it the G3"

Jim Hoagland, The Washington Post | July 7, 2008

The G8 format is unwieldy, ineffective, and unable to deal with global challenges. ++ The G8 has proven bigger does not necessarily mean better; admitting new countries has turned the meetings into a "giant public relations exercise with little real point.”++ An often suggested expansion of the body to a G13 or a G20 would completely destroy the opportunity for effective, informal consultation by world leaders. ++ The United States, the European Union, and Japan should quietly form a G3 that would go back to President Giscard's original idea.

I like this Article! What's this?

Comments

Mon, Jul 7th 2008, 13:00

Ilyas M. Mohsin, PPP, Platinum Contributor (296)

I like this comment! What's this?

A wishful venture.
Any association would remain subject to the variety of prefrences of its members. If there is some visible threat, a common stance develops fast, perhaps prompted by the instict of self-preservation.
McCaine' aversion to Russia' presence in G8 may be seen as a transitory phenomenon. If and when he makes it to the White House,
ground realities may have changed to his disadvantage. As Russia' economic situation is improving, thanks to the energy-crisis, so is her penchant for warming upto China and Europe. If this trend continues, any US President would be obliged to forget policies defined by 'my way or highway' practised for about 6 years with disastrous consequences for America as well as the world.
What Fukuda is doing would, probably, be the norm in any democracy which is part of any such alliance/group. Harmonising state interest with the Global reqirement as per International statutes is the basic need. This would require the balancing of ambitions on the part of the powerful.
Hope history has taught this lesson in the interest of mankind.

Mon, Jul 7th 2008, 15:00

Natalia Ruban , Atlantic Community , Gold Contributor (88)

I like this comment! What's this?

I agree that G8 is "ineffective, and unable to deal with global challenges". However, I think it is not because the institution has too many but too few participants. I think, it is unbelievable that while there are so many facts showing how unrepresentetive G8 is, someone can propose to reduce the number of participants. Hasn't the author noticed that the situation changed in the way that no single challege can be solved without participation of countries like China, India or Russia? Does he really believe that without these countries "G3" can deliver any result?

And one more thing: there is no single EU voice. It still consists of different souveran states with different interests. So whom does the author mean with "EU"? Maybe EU memeber Poland? I don't think so.