What the G-8, G-5 achieved in Italy

The recent meeting of the world’s most developed countries (G-8) and the leading developing economies of India, China, Brazil, South Africa and Mexico (G-5) at L’Aquila in Italy — appropriately described as the Major Economies Forum — has arguably been the most productive gathering since the process was initiated at Heiligendamm in Germany two years ago. While there were no fundamental agreements reached, the menu of issues covered and the quality of discussion at the summit level at least makes clear that the world has changed forever. For the first time a joint statement by the participants was issued at the MEF. It was decided to conclude the Doha Round of trade talks — stalled on account of keen skirmishing between the developing and the developed world, with India being a front-rank protagonist — in a balanced manner by 2010. This is not a small gain. The facilitation of multilateral trading protocols cannot but have a beneficial impact in the time of the gripping world economic crisis. The G-5 also clearly put out the view — articulated by the Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh, on the eve of the L’Aquila conclave and formally presented at the MEF — that the governing structures, whether of the United Nations or the world’s economic and trading bodies, of institutions that frame rules of international life could no longer ignore the claims of the G-5 of being legitimate participants at the high table. The Indian case was made in terms of permanent membership of the UN Security Council, but the leadership role of diverse blocks of countries in the IMF and the World Bank is also to be considered. One thing is quite clear. The industrialised countries mess up the world and the G-5 are drafted to contribute to clearing the mess. This applies to climate change and to the current world economic meltdown. In the latter case, it is frankly the performance of India and China that has helped shore up the international system. This needs official recognition at the MEF level and follow-up action in incorporating these countries in the prime decision-making levels of international institutions. If the L’Aquila MEF produced one single resolve to work on a single critical issue, it was climate change, although we are yet quite far from determining the prescribed role and the contribution sought from different grades of countries that signify varying levels of economic development. An important reason for this is the fundamental transformation in the position of the United States. Under President George W. Bush, the US position was that the heating of the world was not established, and America had ignored Kyoto commitments. President Barack Obama is an entirely different quantity, however. He was direct at the MEF when he said that the science was “clear and convincing”, and that the question of climate change was a defining issue of our time. As such, the Copenhagen summit in December, the successor to Kyoto, is certain to have a very different flavour. At L’Aquila the leaders at least agreed that the heating of the world on account of carbon dioxide emissions, which trigger changes leading to climate change, should not be permitted to get to be more than two per cent above pre-industrial times. India and other G-5 states are quite rightly resolute about resisting quotas capping their individual CO2 emission. After all, per capita the US produces 20 tonnes of CO2 while India produces less than one tonne. Naturally the two cannot be equated in their responsibility in fixing the world’s climate, which in turn affects its economic well-being. Nevertheless, while rightly not accepting a common prescription for all at the formal level, India could begin doing what it can — even before resources for green technology transfers become available to developing countries — to move to the green era, to the extent possible, using its own ingenuity.