The Case for a G-13
Again, another international organization, or talking shop, butts its head against vested interests.
FP: Many analysts say the G-8 no
longer adequately reflects the global power structure. How long will it
be before you can bring rising economies such as China, India, and
Brazil to the table and away from the sidelines?
LB: I think that the Japanese could do it in
three days if they wanted to. But they don't. They are very resistant
to it. I would hope that sometime between this year and the time the
new American president has a chance to host [2012], that there is a G13
or something along those lines.
FP: Is this feasible? Will that making reaching other agreements more difficult?
LB: Absolutely. But it's essential to make
resolution more meaningful. You cannot have a meaningful resolution on
climate without having India and China at the table. You can't have a
meaningful resolution on issues associated with energy and food price
increases if you don't have Brazil, and again India, China and other
major rising economies at the table. Here we are, we've got probably
the most significant set of economic challenges that we've had facing
the leading economies, probably since the 1970s, and yet this time
around the (now) G-8 is not the right group to solve these problems.
How about an Anti-G? A Mini-5?
Sphere: Related Content
Barrapunto
CoRank Español
Delicious
Enchílame
Fresqui Ocio
Furl
Google Bookmarks
Menéame
Netscape
Newsvine
Stumbleupon
Technorati Favorites
Yahoo MyWeb
Comments disabled
Trackbacks disabled
RSS 2.0
Bloglines
Live
MyAOL
Netvibes
Newsgator
Rojo
Comments disabled
Comments have been disabled for this post.
Trackbacks disabled
Trackbacks have been disabled for this post.