G20 Racial Lock Out – Disparity in the System

With the G20 Leader's Summit now completed and all world leaders returned to their respective domains, now is a time for the people of the world and especially Brisbane to reflect on the accomplishments and downfalls of the gathering, and also to critically analyse both the summit itself and also the system it represents.

The G20 is supposedly a gathering of the 20 most “influential” major economies of our world, but a quick look at both the member states of this grouping and also at the selection process for membership reveals that this is not in fact the case. The member states of the G20 are decidedly liberal western states ideologically, with only one African nation and two Latin American nations to represent their respective cultural groups. As of July 2013 there are 174 million Hispanic people worldwide, while Africa accounts for around 15% of global population.

The selection process for membership in the G20 provides the final nail in the coffin for the Summit's ability to accurately reflect the current global economic order.

The research is not clear on who exactly initiated the G20 collaboration, but the current predominant thought lists Hans Eichel, Larry Summers and Paul Martin as the individuals who conceived the group's concept. Hans Eichel, the German Finance Minister was the chair of the G-7 financial forum in 1999 when the G20 was conceptualised, while Larry Summers and Paul Martin were the US Treasury Secretary and Canadian Finance Minister respectively.

Much like the Security Council of the United Nations, the foundation of membership was inherently skewed as these political and financial representatives wrote their own nations in to the official invite list. What makes the G20 unabashedly racially unfulfilled is this: “In a forum such as the G20, it is particularly important for the number of countries involved to be restricted and fixed to ensure the effectiveness and continuity of its activity.

There are nor formal criteria for G20 membership and the composition of the group has remained unchanged since it was established. In view of the objectives of the G20, it was considered important the countries and regions of systemic significance for the international financial system be included. Aspects such as geographical balance and population representation also play a major part.

” This unfair bias established almost two decades ago has enabled the perpetuates of the liberal capitalist system to label themselves the most influential financial actors of the globe, despite the world economic system being almost too dynamic to keep up with, and essentially cement their own financial system as the only effective choice, beating out alternatives with blatant disregard. Despite its own stated selection process, a continent containing 15% of the global population is represented by a single state, which itself represents the most predominantly Caucasian African population. Meanwhile the entire Middle East is represented by its most Western-oriented member, Saudi Arabia, and over 174 million people are represented by only 2 members, and one “guest”. This is of particular importance when assessing the discussions of the Brisbane G20 Peoples Summit conducted over the 3 days prior to the official G20 Leaders Summit.

The Peoples Summit  discussions were dedicated to providing and debating alternatives to the Western capitalist economic system, which the Latin American nations have successfully embodied. A key focus of the Peoples Summit was the economic and trade system devised in 2004 known as ALBA, or the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America. ALBA is an intergovernmental organisation whose focus is on the social, political and economic integration of Latin American and Caribbean countries. It contains 9 member states: Antigua and Barbuda, Bolivia, Cuba, Dominica, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Venezuela and Saint Lucia, who share their own regional currency known as the Sucre.

The economic system conceived by ALBA focuses on trade agreements that meet each countries needs, rather than exchanging a consistent currency at consistent rates regardless of each member's situation. For example, Venezuela produces oil at a cheaper rate for ALBA member states while Cuba trades doctors and and health workers to Venezuela in exchange for oil.

According to statistics presented at the G20 Peoples Summit earlier last week ALBA member states have seen marked improvements on a variety of social issues such as women's health, infant mortality, education and environmental protection. But none of these alternative systems, nor their successes, will be shared among the economic world leaders during this or any other G20 Summit. How can we possibly organise for “growth and development”, as the G20 Summit states as its goals, if we refuse to appropriately recognise the populations both most in need of development, and presenting some of the most interesting growth?

By Erin Lawson