But, I think this criticism is legitimate, even if the G8 is weak and ineffective today.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

That's the current list of Great Powers and wanna-be great powers. They seem to be the relevant membership for a group of great powers.

Now, if only someone would tell me why we need a parallel organisation to the UN Security Council, which is designed to be precisely the club of the great powers (plus assorted representatives of the rest of the world)...

- Jake

Ceterum censeo Chicago esse delendam

The G8 is not some kind of legal or governmental entity.  It is basically the leaders of the most powerful countries agreeing to hang out and talk to each other once a year, come up with some agreed upon priorities for the press to consume along with some photo ops.  Unlike the UN, this is not any kind of of organization with a platform or responsibilities or power to independently enforce or accomplish anything.  They've not been charged with a task.  Its like asking what the aim of your annual family reunion should be.  The aim is to get some people who have something in common in the same room to pat each other on the back for being members of the same club and pose for pictures.  This is the 21st century, so the great unwashed masses must be appeased with some words to the effect that these obscenely wealthy and powerful nations and particularly their CEOs recognize they might have some moral responsibility to mitigate the suffering of others.  However, these are not legally binding sentiments.  

I'm sorry.  I just don't understand what the goal is here.   I personally have no problem with the G8, but understand it to be nothing more important than an opportunity for the leaders of nations whose agendas effect the entire world getting together to talk shop for a few days and agree on a few palatable priorities.  They're not imbued with magical powers to save the world, not even for those few days.  They remain leaders of countries and beholden only to the citizens of those countries and to international law.  It is not a kind of mini United Nations.  It's not like the G8 is some bureaucracy or administration not living up to its responsibility as an organization charged with the task of running something.  It's a forum, not a structure.  Like ET.  Only, without the admins!  It is not any type of formal entity at all.  It's a high-priced picnic.  How can it be ineffective when it is not meant to effect anything other than its own existence?  

"This is nothing compared to how Putin rigged Eurovision."

if there is any actual sausage made at these wankfests, then we're definitely not invited to witness it. and if there isn't, why pretend it's anything but an expensive get-together on our tab?

 basically a buncha fatcats spend a mammoth amount of taxpayers money for a menu that is an insult to the hungry, policed by a bunch of authoritarian uniforms who have not been gentle in keeping citizens from registering their displeasure at this gratuitous display of shameless futility.

a giant fuck-you to the rest of the world, a sad reminder of what bloated idiots have clawed their way up to the top of the dungheap of power, and who hold an entirely disproportionate sway on millions of world dwellers, whose voices will never be heard, who aren't even allowed anywhere near.

these 'leaders' know how unpopular they are, and there they are again, rubbing our noses in it with these self-congratulatory fellatio sessions in plain sight.

let them have the common decency to stay in their bunkers and video-conference instead, i'd have more respect.

they pose for the cameras as if from an olympus of their own minds, saying sweet fanny adams of substance at the end of their orgy, smiling their 'love-me' smiles, and joshing each other in a faux-collegial manner. har-@¬@*dy-har!

if they were doing even a half-assed job of being superpower-managers, they wouldn't have to be afraid, they'd be coming out to be crowned with laurels by the grateful populus.

instead, we get versailles redux, with better security.

there is little i find more of a wind-up, than this regular reminder of how much filth needs to be hosed away before we can have a juster world. each time i pray we won't have to undergo this humiliating spectacle again. pigs at the trough have more charm.

/rant

phew... the world seems a bit lighter now, less bile backed up, lol!

Peace is not the absence of war -- peace is the absence of fear. Ursula Franklin

One of the more truly perverse sentences I've read in a long time.  

First off, who are the "experts and officials involved with the Group of Eight"?  What does that even mean?  And it is these experts and officials involved with the Group of Eight who think the world needs a "global steering mechanism" in the form of the G8.  Does anyone else?  Seems like a terribly narrow and self-interested group of people who believe the G8 needs reformed (or to exist at all probably.)  The Brookings Institution has not questioned the objectivity or import or the opinion of some experts and officials involved with the Group of Eight and the Atlantic Community has not questioned the objectivity or import or the opinion of Brookings Institution.  It would appear.  Honestly - there are real problems in the world.  Why let's go out and make up new ones?  Well, I suppose those employed by think tanks are paid to do that...

"The international press accuses the group of producing "pseudo results" and failing as an agent of global governance."

The G8 is not a global governance institution.  

I'm just baffled.  Have the leaders of the G8 countries been elected to govern globally?  No.  We might all agree that with power comes responsibility, but it seems that what is being expected of the G8 is not anything they've actually been elected to do.  If you want people to set and enforce some global agenda, create a position for that, don't expect if from someone whose job is protecting the interest of one country.  That's a bit mad, isn't it?  The fact is, the starving people in the Sudan did not elect Medvedev and Bush to represent their interests.  We're holding these leaders responsible for something they're under no actual obligation to - and their "word" is not obligation, or we'd have no need for laws or treaties or the UN - and then calling for reform when they don't take responsibility.  Makes no sense to me.

Moreover - I think that it would be dangerous to actually imbue these countries with any more legitimate right or power to set the global agenda.  Is that what anyone outside the sphere of " experts and officials involved with the Group of Eight" believe is necessary?  I rather appreciate the fact that the decisions made in back rooms by the most powerful individuals in the universe are not binding!  I realize, perplexedly, that when calling for "reform" no one is actually suggesting imbuing these countries with more legally binding responsibility than they already have.  But frankly, without this, enlarge it, shrink it, mix it up, put a cherry on top, it's not going to be any more "effective" a "global steering mechanism" or "agent of global governance" because there will not be any incentive for its memebers to be.  We're basically demanding they be agents of global social & economic progress out of the kindness of their hearts.  Yet, people don't generally reach the level of power they've reached because their primary motivation is the warm fuzzy feeling of having done good.  One generally gets into the Senior executive branch by acting out of cold self-interest.  Yet we just expect them to use their powers for international good.  Based on what, exactly?  The Atlantic Community article talks about the G8 not living up to its "mandate."  Who exactly gave them a mandate and to do what?  What is this mysterious mandate of which we speak?  Do tell!

"This is nothing compared to how Putin rigged Eurovision."