Itamaraty quer defender o direito à livre expressão de Trump, num foro inadequado: o G20 - Eliane Oliveira (Globo)

 Planalto elege redes sociais como novo alvo internacional e governo quer apresentar resoluções contra Big Techs

Em movimento desencadeado por banimento de Trump, Itamaraty começa a atuar em fóruns internacionais para reduzir o poder de grandes empresas de tecnologia
Eliane Oliveira

O Globo, 08/02/2021 - 03:30 / Atualizado em 08/02/2021 - 07:14

BRASÍLIA - Motivado pelo bloqueio de pessoas em plataformas da internet — como o então presidente dos EUA, Donald Trump, que no início de janeiro foi banido do Facebook e do Twitter por postagens classificadas como de incitação à violência — o governo Bolsonaro planeja começar a atuar em fóruns internacionais para reduzir a influência das grandes empresas de tecnologia sobre “o debate público, as eleições e a democracia de modo geral”, dizem fontes do Planalto.

Para isso, prepara-se para levar a fóruns internacionais, como o G-20 e a Assembleia Geral da ONU, propostas cujo fim é combater o que o chanceler Ernesto Araújo tem chamado de “tecnototalitarismo”.

O governo quer levar para o debate o argumento de que as redes sociais, embora privadas, se confundem com o espaço público. Por essa razão, devem estar sujeitas à legislação nacional e às garantias constitucionais, como a liberdade de expressão e a livre associação. O tema tem sido tratado com países como Canadá, Austrália, Coreia do Sul, Índia , Japão e México, onde o governo anunciou na semana passada que aprovará lei para regular as redes sociais.

A ideia é apresentar três propostas de resolução. Uma delas condena o banimento de Trump e de qualquer outro dirigente eleito. A segunda reconhece as redes sociais como “bens públicos” com impacto no processo político e propõe medidas para evitar que as empresas que controlam essas redes “distorçam o debate público com intervenções para calar vozes e censurar temas”.

Já a terceira proposta de resolução sugere que essas empresas se adequem a um dos dois regimes possíveis: como meio de comunicação e fórum de debates, com mínima interferência guiada pelas leis locais; ou como empresa de jornalismo, com responsabilidade por sua linha editorial e pela curadoria de conteúdo

Hungria e Terça Livre

Em debate no final de janeiro no Fórum Econômico Mundial, Araújo fez um apelo para que os países democráticos combatam o “tecnototalitarismo”. Mas não foi a primeira vez que o chanceler criticou as chamadas Big Techs. Em janeiro, no Twitter, ele disse que as redes sociais podem se tornar uma “polícia política” e sinalizou que pode haver mudanças na legislação brasileira.

Aliados do presidente Jair Bolsonaro na Europa também se movimentam, alegando, como fazia Trump, que as redes são enviesadas contra a direita. O governo do premier Viktor Orbán, na Hungria, anunciou que apresentará neste semestre um projeto para regular as Big Techs internamente. O da Polônia propôs legislação que multaria as redes por removerem postagens que não violem as leis locais. Países como Alemanha e França, por outro lado, querem combater o discurso de ódio na internet, mas cobram transparência das empresas e afirmam que esse tipo de regulação deve ser objeto de legislação pública, e não de decisão privada.

A preocupação do governo deve-se também a fatores internos. Na semana passada, o canal Terça Livre foi suspenso do YouTube, sob a acusação de violar as regras da plataforma ao veicular a falsa tese de que houve fraude na eleição americana. O secretário de Cultura, Mário Frias, determinou que a Secretaria de Direitos Autorais e Propriedade Intelectual notificasse a empresa e avisou que não admite “qualquer tipo de censura”. O responsável pelo canal, o bolsonarista Allan dos Santos, é investigado nos inquéritos que apuram a disseminação de fake news e a organização de atos contra a democracia.

Para Marco Sabino, especialista em assuntos da internet e sócio da Mannrich e Vasconcelos Advogados, o banimento nunca é a melhor saída mesmo para as redes, que vivem de usuários, tráfego de informações e anunciantes. A remoção das contas é uma medida extrema, disse.

— Estamos vivendo um momento de desinformação e notícias falsas para amealhar simpatizantes, pessoas que comungam daquele pensamento. As plataformas são parte da arena pública e possibilitam que muitas vozes sejam ouvidas. As empresas têm a prerrogativa de derrubar conteúdos falsos, racistas ou que incitem a violência — disse Sabino.

Na opinião do professor e especialista em tecnologia Ronaldo Lemos, a posição do governo brasileiro é triplamente equivocada: é, segundo ele, mais uma jogada de marketing do que uma ação diplomática; o G-20 não é o fórum adequado para tratar da questão; e a chance de haver qualquer medida nesse fórum sobre o tema o é zero.

— Um fórum internacional adequado seria o Conselho de Direitos Humanos da ONU, considerando que os direitos de liberdade de expressão que o chanceler brasileiro invoca nessa ação estão previstos precisamente nos tratados de direitos humanos. No entanto, o prestígio do Brasil perante o Conselho é atualmente muito baixo. O Brasil tem muito mais a explicar do que cacife para propor qualquer iniciativa para ele —disse Lemos.

Crimes e encruzilhada

Dawisson Belém Lopes, professor de Relações Internacionais da Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, lembra que o discurso de ódio e as fake news foram muito usados por Trump e seus apoiadores antes de serem bloqueados.

— Hoje nos encontramos nessa encruzilhada. As grandes empresas estão tentando pôr freios à sabotagem às instituições democráticas, como aconteceu nos EUA, ao cometimento de crimes no ambiente virtual. Mas o problema é que isso gera uma reação de um certo bloco da ultradireita. É uma reação feroz, raivosa, que traz consequências econômicas para as grandes empresas, faz as ações despencarem — afirmou.

Yasmin Curzi de Mendonça, pesquisadora do Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS) da Fundação Getúlio Vargas no Rio, disse que a suspensão das contas de Trump das redes sociais foi uma resposta tardia, mas exagerada. Outras saídas poderiam ser a limitação do engajamento e a redução da visibilidade das publicações —o que a s redes já fazem também.

Para ela, o ideal é que toda a sociedade civil e os atores envolvidos participem das discussões, tendo como base princípios éticos.

Yasmin Curzi de Mendonça, pesquisadora do Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS) da Fundação Getúlio Vargas no Rio, disse que a suspensão das contas de Trump das redes sociais foi uma resposta tardia, mas exagerada. Outras saídas poderiam ser a limitação do engajamento e a redução da visibilidade das publicações —o que a s redes já fazem também.

Para ela, o ideal é que toda a sociedade civil e os atores envolvidos participem das discussões, tendo como base princípios éticos.

https://oglobo.globo.com/mundo/planalto-elege-redes-sociais-como-novo-alvo-internacional-governo-quer-apresentar-resolucoes-contra-big-techs-24873361

Authoritarians Fool the World, But for How Long? - David Dapice (Yale GLobal)

Yale Global, New Haven – 27.6.2019

Authoritarians Fool the World, But for How Long?

The G20 must take bold stands on inequality, climate change and human rights – or risk encouraging authoritarianism

David Dapice

A number of trends contributed to two world wars during the last century: protectionism, delusions about national capabilities, isolationist tendencies on the part of some and expansionism from others, scapegoating ethnic groups, rejection of critical thinking and demonization of the opposition. Similar trends gather strength today as strongmen exploit resentment and fear, promising quick and cruel fixes rather than tackling root causes of real problems. The outlook is bleak for a world with a growing population if world leaders do not push back at authoritarians who emphasize divisions while failing to cooperate on trade, migration, climate change and other global challenges. “Conceivably, authoritarian leaders can cooperate with one another, but this will be an uneasy alliance,” explains economist David Dapice. “Hardliners need enemies and are not reliable allies.” So far, the authoritarians struggle to cow education, legal and media systems and a youthful opposition deeply worried about their future. Dapice concludes that the current down cycle could sow the seeds for a cycle of progressive activism. – YaleGlobal

Medford - “Things fall apart. The center cannot hold. Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.” These lines, written in 1919 after the upheaval and carnage of World War I, still apply to many parts of the world today.

The United States, the leader of the post-World War II order, elected a president who is in a competition with Baghdad Bob, the famously delusional spokesperson for Saddam Hussein during the 2003 invasion of Iraq.  Donald Trump seems intent on destroying trade agreements and alliances with friends while praising dictators with blood on their hands. And polls suggest he has 40 to 45 percent support from voters while Republican senators dare not oppose policies antithetical to their professed ideology and contrary to the interests of their constituents. The United Kingdom, once a builder of a globe-spanning empire, is undecided on whether or how to sever ties with Europe – ignoring the cries of firms that make plans to relocate and drain the country of future tax revenues. India overwhelmingly reelected a Hindu nationalist whose leadership resulted in economic backsliding. Under his leadership as minister, hundreds of Muslims were killed in Gujarat, and as prime minister, Narendra Modi largely remained silent when innocent Muslims were lynched. China has a supreme leader who tries to fit a dynamic and complex society into a 1960s Maoist mold that had proven disastrous. In doing so, he has made many enemies at home and abroad, likely contributing to the collapse of an integrated global economy that had lifted hundreds of millions of Chinese out of poverty.

Does Xi Jinping really think that China could lead the world without giving citizens access to information with an ever-tighter great firewall? Can he believe that putting Communist Party cells in private firms increases innovation? Will Trump succeed in making America “great again” by raising walls against immigration?

Creating divisions and building walls is a theme that unites these rulers.

We have entered a post-factual world in which reality is at best a footnote. Voters support symbols who speak to their fears, not to the reality of their problems. Even Denmark, among the most egalitarian and happiest places on earth, has seen rising support for a right-wing anti-immigrant party at a time when immigration has averaged only 20,000 a year since 2010 among a population of 5.8 million. Places with more stresses like central Europe, Turkey or Egypt have turned to “elected” authoritarians who suppress the press and opposition parties and demonize minorities while corruption rises. Leaders like Germany’s Angela Merkel, a liberal internationalist who said she does not like walls is on her way out. France’s Emmanuel Macron is unpopular, and the anti-immigrant National Rally Party of Marine Le Pen took a third of contested seats in the recent European Parliament elections. No wonder the G20 meetings at which these leaders assemble accomplish so little.

If these trends continue without effective pushback, the expectations are bleak. There will be more controls on migration. But if migrants manage to enter target countries, they will form a marginalized underclass, competing for jobs with native-born workers, many less educated. Climate change, already a driving force for migration at the US-Mexico border, could displace millions more in the next decade. There could be immense pressure to stop people fleeing their destroyed or declining livelihoods, especially if they cross borders. This could go in several directions, from militarized efforts to seal borders with “big beautiful” walls, as suggested by Trump, to more constructive attempts such as giving potential migrants secure choices closer to home.

There will also be more tariffs and higher costs. Prices of goods will increase, and people will have fewer children if they anticipate economic difficulty. The US tariffs in 2018 have cost the average family $419, according to the Federal Reserve, and the 2019 tariffs could cost double that. Lower birthrates and an aging society require more migration. Otherwise, costs in the construction, health care and food processing industries climb – a dilemma for those who dislike foreigners but need them.

The foreign policy implications of an authoritarian world in which each nation strives for narrow advantages and fails to coordinate actions on trade, migration, climate change and other cross-border concerns are not promising. With young people becoming more politically active, their “green” positions may check politicians who try to argue that the “burden” of adjustment should not fall on their nation. Since many localities and major companies already confront climate-related issues, there may even be reason for optimism that cooperation on curtailing fossil fuels will be realized – though probably not fast enough to prevent substantial deterioration of the climate. Still, the advance of cheaper renewable technologies, energy storage and the electrification of vehicles will help immensely. Conceivably, authoritarian leaders can cooperate with one another, but this will be an uneasy alliance. Hardliners need enemies and are not reliable allies.

The outlook for trade is harder to predict. Agriculture remains a politically potent force even though the share of full-time farmers is falling and is already low in most rich countries, usually registering in the low single digits. If farming became less export-oriented, it could evolve into something more like factory farms for many crops, grown closer to final markets. Climate change could also lead to more controlled growing environments. Trump’s tariff policies have trashed foreign markets for US farmers, perhaps leading to long-term displacement as nations retaliate and switch to other sources. Yet his political support holds. If senators from farm states like Iowa, Nebraska and Texas reflected the interests of their constituents, waging trade wars would be more difficult. Temporary fixes such as price supports only lead to larger surpluses, budget deficits and more anger directed against government.

Meanwhile, increasing use of smart robots and lower-cost 3D manufacturing may make clothing and shoe production or electronics assembly more economical, returning such factory work to where the purchasing power is.  If so, this will displace millions of workers in the developing world – again spurring migration – but also lower the volume of trade. Perhaps the world will devolve into trading blocs – the EU and North America are obvious examples, but China and India could form their own regions, too. Some regional groupings, such as Association of Southeast Asian Nations have not managed to increase their intra-group trade shares. How these groups manage relations with the various blocs will determine how open the world system remains. But trade and investment also create rules. A fractured set of rules would make trade more costly and difficult – less than anarchy, but much worse than what had been negotiated over a half century.

Then there is the possibility that the embrace of authoritarian leaders is more a passing fever than chronic condition. “You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time,” former US President Abraham Lincoln purportedly observed.  Younger people accustomed to diversity will become more dominant, many rejecting the populists and parties who claim to defend against minorities. Healthy societies and economies respond to stimuli and change. This down cycle may sow the seeds for the next upcycle – at least if the world learns how to deal with fake news and those who use it for cynical reasons and personal gain.

David Dapice is the economist of the Vietnam and Myanmar Program at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government.  

G20 Investment Measures: a report by Unctad and OECD, Ocotber30, 2015

Dear Members of the World Investment Network,

It is my pleasure to share with you the fourteenth UNCTAD-OECD Report on G-20 Investment Measures.

The report indicates that G-20 members have refrained from raising new barriers to investment as reiterated in their commitment at the Brisbane summit in 2014.

Almost all of the investment policy changes introduced by G-20 members between mid-May 2015 and mid-October 2015 enhanced openness for international investment, the joint report finds. The findings were prepared by UNCTAD and the OECD and are part of a wider report on trade and investment measures in the G-20 issued periodically by UNCTAD, the OECD and the WTO. 

The joint report confirms the long term trend since the monitoring of G-20 policy measures began in 2009; expressed in numbers, well over 80% of newly taken measures specific to foreign direct investment were liberalizing in nature. Beyond their commitment to standstill, the report invites G-20 Leaders to consider ways and means to effectively promote investment to boost global economic growth, trade, employment and sustainable development. There is a need for G-20 collective leadership in this regard.

According to the Report, during the reporting period the following measures were adopted:
Three G-20 members - P.R. China, India and Saudi Arabia - amended their investment-specific policies.
One G-20 member - P.R. China - amended its investment policy related to national security.
Nine G-20 members - Australia, Brazil, Canada, P.R. China, Japan, Republic of Korea, Mexico, the Russian Federation and Turkey - concluded three bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and six other international investment agreements ("other IIAs").
One G-20 member - Indonesia - sent notices of termination for two of its BITs.
Previous reports and detailed information on investment policy changes can be downloaded from UNCTAD's databases on the Investment Policy Hub including the Investment Policy Monitor Database and the IIA Navigator.

I hope that you find our Report on G-20 Investment Measures useful and interesting - please feel free to also share it with your colleagues!

With kind regards,

James Zhan
Director
Investment & Enterprise Division
United Nations Conference on Trade & Development
Palais des Nations, Geneva
Tel: +41 22 917 5797
 
Fourteenth Report on G20 Investment Measures 

OECD-UNCTAD, October 30, 2015

As the global financial crisis brokes even years ago, G20 Leaders committed to resisting protectionism in all its forms at their 2008 Summit in Washington. At their subsequent summits in London, Pittsburgh, Toronto, Seoul, Cannes, Los Cabos, St Petersburg and Brisbane, they reaffirmed their pledge and called on WTO, OECD, and UNCTAD to monitor and publicly report on their trade and investment policy measures. 

The present document is the fourteenth report on investment and investment-related measures made in response to this call. It has been prepared jointly by the OECD and UNCTAD Secretariats and covers investment policy and investment-related measures taken between 16 May 2015 and 15 October 2015.

Mon sejour en France (2): explicando fracasso de Cannes

Postando aqui um artigo analítico sobre o fracasso da cúpula de Cannes e a liderança de Sarkozy: faltou falar das primeiras tentativas reformistas de Sarkozy, não só "reformar Bretton Woods", o que por si só já seria impossível, como, ainda mais lunático, controlar os mercados de commodities de par le monde, o que, além de impossível, já seria altamente prejudicial ao Brasil.
Mas, enfim, o mundo é assim mesmo: difícil de reformar.
A França, então, não é difícil: simplesmente impossível. Melhor desistir...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida 

Rescuing Cannes from failure

Howard Davies

November 3, 2011

After George Papandreou’s surprise decision to ask the Greek people if they would prefer five years of austerity or five years of austerity with a side order of chaos, Nicolas Sarkozy’s best-laid plans for Cannes have had to be, well, canned. He launched his presidency of the Group of 20 leading nations with calls for a new Bretton Woods – a wholesale reconstruction of the international monetary system – and a global plan for renewed growth. Even though the referendum has now been scraped, these grand French aims, some of which were unrealistic anyway, will inevitably take second place to the eurozone’s worsening agonies. Cue the visiting Americans and Chinese calling on the Old Continent to get its act together.

That is unfortunate, and Mr Sarkozy should try to wrest at least part of the agenda back on to the longer-term issues. Behind the scenes, on the lower slopes below the summit, a group of ‘sherpas’ have been working hard. There has been little appetite for fundamental reform a la française. The so-called mutual assessment process, which was supposed to lead to a set of indicators to measure global imbalances, and promote action to correct them, has run into predictable opposition from China, in particular.

But something could be rescued from the wreckage. Of course there will have to be a general commitment to sustaining economic growth. It will only be of value, however, if it is buttressed by specific commitments to strengthen the resources of the International Monetary Fund (and the European financial stability facility) to provide help to the walking wounded, whose problems threaten to derail the summit and, more importantly, the global economy. There is a clear common global interest there, and sometimes peering into the abyss, as the summiteers are now doing, can shift entrenched positions.

A British-led group has been working on unglamorous issues surrounding the Financial Stability Board, proposing that it be given a legal identity and added teeth. That would be a step forward. There are clear signs that the early enthusiasm for global regulatory agreements has dissipated, with many countries going their own way, creating damaging uncertainty in financial markets. That is partly because, between summits, there is no sustained global leadership.

Another group has been working on infrastructure finance. There is a huge need today for investment in transport networks and energy generation in particular. When long-term interest rates are so low there must be some positives from reconnecting finance with investment needs.

We cannot expect an earth-shattering headline deal from Cannes. But often the Palme d’Or winner at the film festival is a disappointment, while some of the second rank offerings can be rewarding, and longer-lasting. That may be the best we can expect this weekend. Ce n’est pas magnifique, but it’s the nature of the economic war we’re in.

The writer is professor of practice at Sciences Po in Paris, and former chairman of the Financial Services Authority, former deputy governor of the Bank of England and former director of London School of Economics.

G20 na Coreia do Sul: uma agenda cheia de deja-vus e platitudes

O site Korea.net acaba de publicar os grandes temas para a agenda do encontro de cúpula do G20 a ser realizado na Coréia do Sul.
Acho que tem para todos os gostos, dentro do politicamente correto. A destacar o penúltimo item, abordando energia e anti-corrupção. Não sei se é intencional, ou seja, buscar uma corrupção mais energética, ou colocar mais energia na luta contra a corrupção. Vai lá saber...
Em todo caso, já sabemos o que esperar: aquelas declarações mornas, cheias de boas intenções, para que cada país continue a fazer exatamente o que estava fazendo antes...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida

Key phrases for the G20 Summit revealed
Korea.net, Aug. 17, 2010

The key phrases for the G20 Financial Summit meeting have been disclosed. The Presidential Committee for the G20 Seoul Summit explained that the new phrase “Shared Growth Beyond Crisis” reflects the main theme of the G20 Summit, which aims to establish a framework for strong, sustainable balanced growth worldwide.

The agenda for the G20 Summit was classified into eight categories: ▲ global economy ▲cooperative framework for balanced growth ▲reform of the international financial regulatory system ▲modernization of international financial institutions and the global financial safety net ▲development ▲trade and investment ▲energy and anti-corruption ▲ business summit.

The government has already held a high level working group meeting in Seoul on July 19 and 20, followed by the Sherpa meeting from July 20 to22. The high-level meeting, attended by some 100 representatives from member nations and global institutions, discussed specifying the existing agendas and decided on the future directions for talks.

The Sherpa meeting, which is a closed-door event, was attended by another 100 deputy representatives and aides from member nations and relevant institutions to review the general direction for the G20 agenda. The name of the meeting is derived from the Sherpas of the Himalayas, guides and porters for those who seek to scale the mountains.

The Presidential Committee will continue to hold preparatory meetings related to finance, budget, energy, and development, and seek the advice of other countries to coordinate before the official meeting.

By Kim Hee-sung
Korea.net Staff Writer

Governo do PT defende banqueiros (e capitalistas, obviamente)...

O mundo gira, a Lusitana roda, e o PT se desmente. Anos atrás, os companheiros pregavam o calote das dívidas (interna e externa), o rompimento com o FMI, a taxação dos movimentos de capitais (seguindo nisso os franceses da ATTAC) e outras medidas consideradas "progressistas", populares, anticapitalistas, ou seja lá o que for.
Agora, no G20, o Brasil recusa taxar banqueiro, e quem sabe até saiu em defesa dos banqueiros.
Como é que o governo dos companheiros e dos trabalhadores sai por aí defendendo os interesses de capitalistas da pior espécie, aqueles justamente mais comprometidos com a "financeirização" da economia (seja lá o que isso queira dizer)?
Como é que chegamos a esse ponto? Logo eles???!!!

O ministro brasileiro, nessa reunião do G20 de Toronto, nada disse sobre a taxação dos fluxos de capitais, mas, contrariamente a seus antigos companheiros (e o que ele mesmo dizia alguns anos atrás), ele agora deve ser contra.
" -- Taxar banqueiro? Só se passarem por cima do meu cadáver!"

Bem, não vamos exagerar, mas é algo do gênero. O governo mais "social" desde Cabral, está em ótimas relações com banqueiros e capitalistas em geral.
Mas, então, como vão fazer a tal de redistribuição de renda? Só em cima da classe média?
Vivendo e aprendendo...

Mas, se o ministro elogia as medidas tomadas pelos países desequilibrados -- Grécia, Espanha e Portugal -- ele podia adotar medidas semelhantes -- cortes de gastos, de salários, de pensões, eliminação de cargos públicos, privatizações, congelamento de salários e benefícios, aumento de impostos -- para evitar que o Brasil também fique desequilibrado (embora não seria por falta de impostos). Todos esses países estão fazendo reformas previdenciárias, já que estão com fortes déficits no setor. Parece que o Brasil só tem superávit nessa área...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida

Brasil contra taxa dos bancos
Correio Braziliense, 28/06/2010

Toronto, Canadá — Representando o Brasil nas reuniões do G-20, o ministro da Fazenda, Guido Mantega, disse que a consolidação da economia mundial não pode custar o esforço e a penalização dos países emergentes. “Os países exportadores não podem fazer os ajustes às nossas custas”, disse ele. “Não sou contra os ajustes, mas é desejável que os países emergentes não carreguem nas costas a retomada do crescimento (econômico)”, sugeriu.

Determinado a ampliar o espaço nas discussões econômicas mundiais, o Brasil assumiu opiniões divergentes das defendidas por Estados Unidos e União Europeia. Como os norte-americanos, o governo brasileiro prega que a crise econômica seja combatida com corte de gastos, desde que não se restrinjam as medidas de estímulo à retomada do crescimento. Ao contrário de Estados Unidos e Europa, no entanto, o Brasil não quer a taxação dos bancos e espera a reformulação do Fundo Monetário Internacional (FMI).

Segundo o ministro, é possível consolidar o setor financeiro com corte de gastos públicos e a adoção de políticas de estímulo ao consumo. De acordo com Mantega, o Brasil é “bastante assertivo” nessa defesa e não aceita recuos. Mas na declaração final, o G-20 não se furtará a recomendar a taxação dos bancos, embora nenhum dos países do grupo seja obrigado a seguir. O Brasil integra a ala dos países contrários à medida.

Missão cumprida
Mantega disse que o Brasil e outros países emergentes cumpriram a lição de forma correta, garantindo ações internas que impediram a contaminação pela crise. O ministro reiterou que são os países emergentes que estimulam o crescimento mundial, exercendo o papel de “puxadores” da economia. “Os países avançados é que estão retardando o crescimento econômico”, afirmou.
E aproveitou para elogiar as últimas medidas adotadas pelos governos da Grécia, da Espanha e de Portugal para combater os efeitos da crise e impedir o agravamento da situação. Segundo ele, essa reunião do G-20 ocorre em um momento melhor do que há alguns meses. “A economia mundial está se recuperando, mesmo na União Europeia há recuperação”, analisou.

A irrelevancia do G20 - Walter Russell Mead

Pointless G-20 Summit Unfolds In Toronto
Walter Russell Mead
The American Interest, June 25th, 2010

The first task for anybody these days who wants to follow world news in an intelligent way is to figure out what to ignore. All over the world, commissions are meeting, legislatures debating, leaders are making speeches, demonstrators are marching, sabers are rattling and so on. Nobody can follow it all or make sense of it all. So, from the standpoint of the generalist or the engaged citizen the question is how to achieve ‘intelligent ignorance’: how to figure out what you don’t need to follow so that you can focus like a laser on what really counts.

The approaching G-20 summit in Toronto is an excellent subject to ignore — a classic pseudo-event that will be breathlessly and minutely covered by the ’serious’ press at which much will be said and little done. Over the last two weeks I myself have saved great swathes of time by skimming lightly across rather than delving deeply into such subjects as whether the United States and Germany will engage in a catfight over fiscal stimulus and whether China’s decision to loosen its control over its currency will reduce the pressure on China at the G-20. It is as close to certain as anything can be that nothing will take place at the G-20 that changes German or American fiscal plans or in any way shape or form affect China’s currency policy in any substantive way. There is no point whatever in covering these subjects, and just because journalists are stupid and lazy enough to write these pieces and editors are misguided enough to run them is no reason why you, dear reader, should waste your precious time reading them. Indeed, to the extent that you allow yourself to be deceived into the belief that what is happening in Toronto is an event rather than a pageant you will actually be degrading your ability to follow world affairs.

While the approaching G-20 summit, like previous G-20 and G-8 summits, is a pseudo-event as pointless as an American political convention, there is one useful purpose it can serve: it can help students of world affairs learn the difference between real events and fake ones, between (as Mark Twain said) a bolt of lightning and a lightning bug.

The first thing to observe is that the G-20 isn’t new. It is an expanded version of the old G-8 (which itself was the old G-7 plus Russia). These summit meetings of world leaders date back for a generation; they have always gotten lots of coverage in the serious press, and they have almost never meant anything or gotten anything done. World leaders like them because they provide a platform that lets presidents and prime ministers look like statesmen instead of politicians. Bureaucrats adore them because position papers must be written and revised and many obscure officials must rack up air miles preparing compromises and talking points for communiques and declarations. It doesn’t matter to the bureaucrats that the declarations have no binding force and that countries who sign onto them will generally go on and do exactly what they would have done had no declaration ever been made. Process! Paper! Junkets!

Now the one sure thing about vacuous talking shops is that increasing the number of participants decreases the importance of the meeting. If 7 or 8 leaders representing the world’s richest countries almost never agreed on anything important, how many important decisions will a group of 20 leaders from countries with even greater disparities in interest and outlook reach? If 7 or 8 leaders consistently produced empty communiques with few real world results, how much more vacuous and much less effective will the communiques produced by 20 world leaders be? There will be more empty posturing and vain grandstanding than before — and there will be less substance and less frank talk than ever.

Yet, in a striking demonstration of the idiocy and futility with which our world is governed, as the G-8 morphs into the G-20 and becomes ever less likely to produce any meaningful result, it is getting more coverage and not less.

There are several reasons for this. First, the word ‘news’ is derived from the word ‘new’, not from the word ’significant’. Even the sclerotic world of serious journalism and diplomatic convention was beginning to weary of the G-7/G-8 story. With every passing summit, the vapidity of these events became harder to ignore; we were reaching the shark-jumping moment when not even bureaucrats could pretend to care. But now we have new characters and new plot lines. There is almost no chance that the G-20 meetings will accomplish more than the G-7 meetings, but what does that have to do with anything? Evidently, not much.

Second, pandering is one of the activities that bring politicians, journalists and diplomats together, and the G-20 summit is a panderfest of historic proportions. Politicians pander to the prejudices and aspirations of their constituents. Right now that means ‘looking busy’ about the world economy, so the politicians welcome a summit that can showcase their tireless efforts to make voters rich or at least get them jobs. Diplomats also pander: the powerful countries always need to stroke the less powerful but not insignificant. This was one of the most successful features of the G-7: Canada and Italy stood on (apparently) equal footing with the US, Japan, Germany, Britain and France. Then we pandered to Russia, desperate for signs of great power status, by turning the G-7 into the G-8. And now, drumroll, with the expansion of the G-8 to the G-20 we can pander to the vanity (sorry, we can recognize the importance) of a whole new bunch of countries. Also, we can do something that matters some — bringing China and India into the club — without dropping Canada and Italy. Expanding the club avoids giving offense even if it makes the summits even less focused and useful than before for real policy purposes, but expanding the membership is the better choice if the chief function of the group is to flatter rather than to do.

Amazingly, this obvious and quite relevant fact has not been a major feature in the coverage of what much of the ’serious’ press continues to treat like a major development. Rather than hounding politicians for boondoggling, useless junkets, vanity grandstanding and general time wasting, the serious press has generally supported the summit process and enthusiastically for the most part hailed the ‘rise’ of the G-20.

This is partly because summits work well for the press. The serious press likes these summits for the same reasons that the Weather Channel likes hurricanes — the summits are recurring events that are easy to cover. What will Canada’s position be on bank reform at the G-20? What is the French view on Chinese currency reform? Sources don’t mind talking to journalists about subjects like this so the stories are easy to research and write; as long as editors are willing to publish this swill journalists will gladly go on writing it. From this perspective the increasing difficulty of pretending that G-7 summits still mattered after decades of irrelevance was a problem for journalists; the shift to the G-8 and now G-20 format keeps hope alive.

But the press is also in the pandering business. Many readers are less interested in understanding the world than in receiving confirmation that their existing understanding of the world is correct. For many of the people who read the serious press, the belief that the world is moving smoothly into a new era of North South cooperation along a path of institutional development and reform is an important part of their world view. They also want and perhaps need to believe that the world’s political and economic authorities know what to do about the economic issues we face and are laboring earnestly together to solve common problems. The G-20 story reinforces these important if delusional narratives in ways that both the producers and the consumers of serious journalism find deeply appealing.

Ultimately I suspect that the air will lead out of the G-20 bubble. The world press once covered the meetings and the votes of the UN General Assembly with great attention. I am old enough to remember when General Assembly votes got headline treatment in major US papers. In due course the pretense that those votes mattered in the real world became unsustainable and the headlines died away.

Pending that day, the best way to handle the flood of coverage about events like G-20 summits is to employ the vital news technique of strategic defocusing. Don’t turn a blind eye completely: scan the headlines and even read the occasional op-ed if the columnist is using an approaching summit as a news hook for an interesting essay (rather than bloviating at length about, say, whether Chancellor Merkel will have a public fight with President Obama over the fiscal policies of their two countries). Every now and then a man will actually bite a dog at one of these summits; you can’t ignore them completely but with very little investment of time you can monitor the news flow to see whether by some bizarre twist of fate a real fact somehow manifests itself amid the empty pomp.

For the upcoming weekend, this is good news. We can all spend more time outdoors and less time with the newspapers, TV talking heads and news magazines until this whole pointless roadshow leaves town.

© The American Interest LLC & Walter Russell Mead 2009-2010

G8 and G20 summits: a tale of two summits

You Say G-8, I Say G-20: Let's Not Call the Whole Thing Off
Heather A. Conley and J. Stephen Morrison
CSIS Critical Questions, June 24, 2010

Q1: Why are the G-8 and G-20 leaders meeting in Canada this week, and what do they hope to accomplish?
A1: Canada will be the first country to host the G-8 and G-20 Summits back-to-back (the G-20 will be cochaired with South Korea). To its credit, Canada has worked extensively over the past year to tighten and integrate the agendas for the dual summits. The fragility of the global economy and the coordination of measures to regulate the global financial system will dominate both meetings. It is expected that the G-8 Summit (June 25) will focus on a much broader agenda that encompasses preventing global nuclear proliferation (with a strong focus on Iran and North Korea); strengthening the G-8's accountability to its past commitments; advancing the G-8's development agenda, especially maternal and child health, food security, and Africa; reaffirming a commitment to combat climate change; and tackling the global drug trade and its links to terrorism financing. As seen during the last G-20 meeting nine months ago, the G-20 (June 26-27) will continue to focus on reforming the global financial sector, spurring economic growth, and coordinating policies to end stimulus spending. Debate will also center on the need to rebalance global trade (the Chinese decision to allow the renminbi to gradually appreciate is seen as an early victory) and whether to introduce a global bank levy to finance future financial sector rescues (the Europeans support, most other nations do not). As more ominous economic and political clouds appear on the G-8/G-20 horizon-the ongoing European debt crisis, tensions over Iran's nuclear program, and the ongoing Gulf oil spill-global leaders will be pressed to demonstrate that these summits have the ability to develop shared solutions to complex challenges. In view of the diminishing dynamism within the G-8 itself and the still-to-be-formed mandate, ground rules, and long-term priorities for the G-20, the results are likely to be mixed.

Q2: Why does the G-8 focus on development assistance?
A2: At the 2005 Gleneagles G-8 Summit chaired by the United Kingdom, then Prime Minister Tony Blair won a commitment from the G-8 countries to add $50 billion in new overseas development assistance (ODA) in the next five years ($25 billion to Africa) to accelerate achievement of the United Nation's Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). In anticipation of the September 2010 UN Summit on the MDGs, Canada prepared the Muskoka Accountability Report, a five-year report card on G-8 member country performance. The aggregate numbers show some significant gains, as well as the corrosive impact of a three-year global recession: G-8 ODA rose substantially but nonetheless fell $18 billion short (in current dollars) of the $50-billion commitment. Aid to Africa increased by $10 billion versus $25 billion. In retrospect, the G-8 hubris of 2005 seems stale. The United States and United Kingdom have been high performers; Italy and Japan stand at the back. The report details major gains in health and support of peacekeeping but low or weak progress in stemming debt levels, mitigating climate change, and promoting trade and regional integration.
At Muskoka, Canada will spearhead a maternal and child health initiative, to which Canada has pledged $1 billion over five years and to which the Obama administration's Global Health Initiative will add another $0.5 billion per year, when fully funded by Congress. Indeed, 2010 is proving to be the year of maternal and child health, and Muskoka will be part of that surge. Just prior to the G-8/G-20, Melinda Gates announced a Gates Foundation commitment of $1.5 billion. Canada's success in leveraging substantial new commitments for maternal and child health from within the G-8, other than from the United States and United Kingdom, remains to be proven. Ottawa has been busy soliciting pledges from non-G* countries Norway, the Netherlands, and New Zealand in hopes of filling out the picture.

Q3: Is the G-8 really that important anymore? Hasn't the G-20 simply overtaken the G-8 as the institutional framework of choice?
A3: We are in the midst of an ambiguous, fluid transition involving both the G-8 and G-20. This transition will unfold in fits and starts over the next several years.

The G-8 is in a far different place today than the global economic optimism of 2005: there are daunting long-term economic challenges ahead; and debt/deficit and budget woes will dampen enthusiasm for most, but not all, new initiatives. The G-8's focus has now turned to meeting existing commitments, measuring results, and finding important new development options that have high value and potentially lower cost. Despite this reduction in overall ambition, the G-8 will remain relevant in its role as a driver for international development and global health for the foreseeable future.

The G-20 agenda may migrate inevitably to development and health, security, and climate change if or when its leaders see incentives to widen the agenda beyond technical deliberations and economic crisis management. But this will not happen overnight: it will require converting the G-20 into a more coherent, deliberative body with clearer internal norms and accountability mechanisms; and, it will require that the key emerging economic powers-Brazil, China, India, Korea, Mexico, South Africa, and Turkey-reach a consensus that the G-20 is indeed the proper forum to pursue a broader global agenda. Neither requirement has been met thus far. While this transition's ultimate outcome is neither preordained nor conclusive in direction, it will be a dynamic process to observe.

Heather A. Conley is senior fellow and director of the Europe Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C. J. Stephen Morrison is senior vice president and director of the Global Health Policy Center at CSIS

2060) United Nations and G20 - A Stanley Foundation Memo

The United Nations and the G-20: Ensuring Complementary Efforts
Stanley Foundation, April 10, 2010
Policy Memo

In little more than a year, the G-20 has emerged as a vital summit-level forum for leaders to coordinate international economic policy. The global financial crisis drove home the need for consultations among a wider set of key economic players, more representative of 21st-century realities than the earlier G-8 club of predominately Western industrialized nations.

This development raises important questions about the future shape of the international system and multilateral cooperation. It is increasingly clear that diplomatic cooperation will be multi-multilateral—with an intricate web of different intergovernmental forums and mechanisms. If multilateral cooperation is to fulfill its purpose of solving problems and spreading peace and justice around the world, governments and their leaders must mobilize and harmonize the capabilities of the intergovernmental instruments at their disposal.

The Stanley Foundation's 41st United Nations Issues Conference convened some 35 governmental and nongovernmental officials near New York on March 26-28, 2010, to discuss effective collaboration between the United Nations and the G-20 heads of state summits and preparatory processes. Participants included UN officials, diplomats from a number of countries, and global governance specialists.

Highlights and key observations from the discussion are in this new Policy Memo.

About The Stanley Foundation
The Stanley Foundation seeks a secure peace with freedom and justice, built on world citizenship and effective global governance. It brings fresh voices, original ideas, and lasting solutions to debates on global and regional problems. The foundation is a nonpartisan, private operating foundation, located in Muscatine, Iowa, that focuses on peace and security issues and advocates principled multilateralism. The foundation frequently collaborates with other organizations. It does not make grants. Online at www.stanleyfoundation.org.