Posted By Daniel W. Drezner Share

Reading through the final G-20 communique and some of the after-action reports, a few quick thoughts on the London summit: 

  • As it turns out, things went a lot better than they did at Doha.  Admittedly a low bar, but still...
  • Remember how a lot of people (rightly) criticized the Bush administration for deciding that Iraq should be the central front in the Global War on Terror external contingency operations?  That's kind of how I feel about much of the sturm und drang surrounding the summit about tax havens and hedge fund regulation.  Neither of these things played a significant role in triggering the current financial crisis, so why all the hubbub? 
  • I confess to finding the whole tax haven obsession to be faintly amusing.  I've heard MEPs talk as if this step will be the cure to all of Europe's ills.  As someone who worked on this stuff back in the day, I must applaud the G-20 for getting back to the point where the G-7 was at the very end of the Clinton administration (click here if you don't believe me).  That's progress, mind you, but it's hardly earth-shattering.
  • Kevin Drum does an admirable job of comparing the draft communique with the final version to see what's been added.  He missed a graf though.  Seriously, I'm offering 10 Special Drawing Rights to anyone able to decipher this sucker: 

In addition to reforming our international financial institutions for the new challenges of globalisation we agreed on the desirability of a new global consensus on the key values and principles that will promote sustainable economic activity. We support discussion on such a charter for sustainable economic activity with a view to further discussion at our next meeting. We take note of the work started in other fora in this regard and look forward to further discussion of this charter for sustainable economic activity.

  • It's all about the follow-through -- will the extra 1.1 trillion in IMF and MDB financing actually occur?  More importantly, will it matter?  An absence of trade finance is one reason for the contraction of the poorest countries of the world, but a bigger reason is that we're in a global friggin' recession.  Ending that would be the best medicine for the global economy.  Which means that...
  • While there were some significant accomplishments in London, there was no progress on the two biggest issues -- financial regulation and jump-starting the global economy.  Admittedly, the degree of difficulty is high here, but on substance, the summit gets a C+.
  • On style, Obama does get an A-.  I loved this bit from Helene Cooper's NYT story:  "In a rare show of emotion from the international press, many in the room stood up and cheered after Mr. Obama was done [with his press conference]."  C'mon, an American was on the global stage and not one shoe was thrown?  Man, times have changed.  Meawhile, as for Michelle Obama, there's this priceless AP quote from a Buckingham Palace spokesman:  "We don't issue instructions on not touching the queen."
 
Facebook|Twitter|Reddit

BRETT

3:21 PM ET

April 3, 2009

I'm offering 10 Special

I'm offering 10 Special Drawing Rights to anyone able to decipher this sucker:

I think they're saying that they're trying to agree on what norms and beliefs will, if accepted by everyone, eventually lead to actions towards a sustainable economy. Sort of like a bunch of environmentalists getting together and deciding that "small is beautiful" would be their primary principle in pursuing environmental action.

I'm guessing it's supposed to be easier than actually taking action to pursue a sustainable economy, like shifting their economies away from non-renewable, polluting energy resources (particularly coal and a transportation sector that is dependent on oil). In any case, can I have my Special Drawing Rights?

 

DANI K. NEDAL

3:22 PM ET

April 3, 2009

Seems to me they want a

Seems to me they want a Washington Consensus do-over.

 

FNORD

7:34 PM ET

April 3, 2009

"That's kind of how I feel

"That's kind of how I feel about much of the sturm und drang surrounding the summit about tax havens and hedge fund regulation. Neither of these things played a significant role in triggering the current financial crisis, so why all the hubbub? "

I think a lot of that comes from the anger in mainland Europe over the fact that there is no legal recause against those entities, since they are transnational (as in hedgefunds) or extralegal (taxhavens) methods of burying money. And they also serve the black economy, and makes the whole financial scene one where black and white money mingles. They represent the black hole at the bottom, where money disappears. Where did the billions stolen from the US treasury during the Bremer admin of Iraq reside now, par example?

 

FNORD

7:38 PM ET

April 3, 2009

PS: "In addition to reforming

PS: "In addition to reforming our international financial institutions for the new challenges of globalisation we agreed on the desirability of a new global consensus on the key values and principles that will promote sustainable economic activity."

Thats a specific reference to a program started by the scandinavian countries, based on former Norwegian PM Gro Harlem Brundtlands term "sustainable growth" I believe. Its basically a bone to the leftists with money, us Scandics and the New Zealanders and Canada (and to an extent, Australia. The rest dont give a shit, but its a bone tossed.

 

FNORD

7:46 PM ET

April 3, 2009

and

P.P.S. Theres also projects like this: "Creating Sustainable Growth in Europe. Resource Productivity, Environmental Tax Reform and Sustainable Growth in Europe"

http://www.polsoz.fu-berlin.de/en/polwiss/forschung/systeme/ffu/projekte/laufende/06_ressourcenproduktivitaet_oekologische_steuerreform/index.html

What are Drawing Rights? ;-)

 

BLUE13326

4:37 AM ET

April 4, 2009

IMF world

IMF world currency.

Resurrected by the G20 this wk.

 

BLUE13326

12:50 AM ET

April 6, 2009

Keith Hennessey makes the

Keith Hennessey makes the interesting point in comparing the November and April statements that one important word and phrase has been removed between the two:

'free'

as in free markets

Also removed were 'rule of law,' 'private property,' and 'efficient', as in efficient regulation.

Pretty telling.

http://keithhennessey.com/2009/04/03/what-happened-to-free-markets-in-london/

 

Daniel W. Drezner is professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.

Read More