is niet meer.

De ploeg van is verhuisd naar waar we samen met anderen aan een nieuwswebsite werken. De komende weken en maanden bouwen we om tot een archief van 10 jaar werk van honderden vrijwilligers.

Top of flop? Ongehoorde stemmen over de G20 in Londen

Top of flop? Ongehoorde stemmen over de G20 in Londen

Historische top of klein stapje vooruit? Hieronder een reeks reacties geplukt uit heel uitlopende bronnen als kranten uit het Zuiden, alternatieve nieuwssites, NGO-sites en ... Bloomberg.

“In effect, the only tangible result of the G-20 meeting - the tripling of IMF resources - is astounding. The same people who drove the Latin American economy into dust and were responsible for widespread poverty in Asia in the aftermath of the Asian crisis; the very people who encouraged the idiotic accumulation of market-return independent foreign exchange reserves by Asian countries that subsequently caused the asset bubbles of the US and Europe; the very people who had no clue about the impending bubble burst up until the beginning of 2008, are now supposed to gather up the foresight and skills required to end an economic crisis whose only recent historic parallel was the 1929 depression in the United States; an event that took place a good 16 years before the IMF was itself created.”
Chan Akya in The Asia Times

“The consensus of the London G20 summit. It is based on a set of highly necessary but also mutually accommodating working principles, of the sort that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago, as unilateralism seemed to be the dominating theme in international relations.”
Commentaarstuk in de China Daily

Het alternatieve radiostation DemocracyNow! nodigde professor David Harvey (o.m. auteur van A Brief History of Neoliberalism) uit om zijn licht te laten schijnen over de G20-top.

“What they’re trying to do is to reinvent the same system. And I think this is a collective concern, and there’s a lot of squabbling on the details, as it were. But the fundamental argument they are making is, how can we actually reconstitute the same sort of capitalism we had and have had over the last thirty years in a slightly more regulated, benevolent form, but don’t challenge the fundamentals? And I think it’s time we challenge the fundamentals.”
David Harvey in Democracy Now!

“The world order as we knew it since 1944 has come to an end, and the new world order will have to take the new G7 into account in order to make quick decisions.  This means that China, India, Brazil, and Russia are in, and some European countries are out. Anyway, the discussions held by 20 countries+2 will be irrelevant, since this needs to be a global discussion, given who the new creditors and debtors are.”
De Peruvaanse onderzoeker Oscar Ugarteche in een artikel op de website van Monthly Review

“Het IMF krijgt een blanco cheque maar de hervorming van deze instelling blijft niet meer dan een belofte.”
Duncan Green, woordvoerder van Oxfam

“This is a major step forward and a reversal of the ideology of the 1990s, and at a very official level, a rejection of the ideas pushed by the U.S. and others. It’s a historic moment when the world came together and said we were wrong to push deregulation.”
Oud-hoofdeconoom van de Wereldbank Joseph Stiglitz die andersglobalist werd aan Bloomberg

"The G20's strategy for solving the financial and economic crisis, in other words, is detailed, innovative, fully costed and of vast scale and ambition. Its plans for solving the environmental crisis are brief, vague and uncosted. The environmental clauses - which contradict almost everything that goes before - have been tacked onto the end of the communique as an afterthought. No new money has been set aside. No new ideas are proposed; just the usual wishful thinking: let's call the whole package green and hope for the best."
Onderzoeksjournalist George Monbiot in The Guardian

having all the money and still be poor

The G20 summit made a big mistake. They concentrated on money or in other words tried to solve the crisis with the medicine that caused it.

Even if Mankind had all the money in the world, it would be nothing without the air, the water, the soil and the food provided by Nature.

Nature should have been priority number 1, but most leaders are to blinded by money to see that.

Maybe a hint: the next G20 summit at the end of the year to concentrate on Nature!

having all the economy and still be in several global crises

I agree with Pedro: all this money, where does it come from? It is very possible that more economy causes more poverty to people and more harm to nature. More economy does not seem the answer to this problems. A better, greener and more solidary economy has to become the leading principle. If this is neglected, we continue to face crises after crises.