Do Something About It

www.DoSomethingAboutIt.org.uk

G20 achieved some successes...but where's the plan to tackle poverty and climate change?

Despite the G20 meeting sometimes resembling one big intergovernmental photo op, quite a lot was actually achieved at the London summit. Progressives can take heart that, despite heckling from the media and anti-progressive forces, the British Prime Minister was able to keep all parties more or less together, resulting in a document that does give some hope of the world getting out of the current financial near-catastrophe sooner rather than later.

Is it all progressives had hoped for? No, not by a long shot.

Some of the major issues we care about weren't even on the agenda. There was vague, passing mention of climate change, but where was the developing world? The only person I heard talking about development was Bob Geldof.

Actually, that might be overstating the case somewhat. There was talk of the developing world in the communiqué, but it was overshadowed by the G20's focus on the G20's interests.

Perhaps that's to be expected, but there are many who believe the G20 could have done better. For example, in my spare time, I'm a campaigner with the NGO Tearfund (a Christian development and aid organisation), whose official response to the G20 was headlined thus: 'G20 fumbles chance to help poor and climate'.

Despite recognising the importance of the stimulus deal and progress on other issues including tax havens and shadow banking, Tearfund claims that much of the $1.1trillion is not, in fact, new money and that most of it will go to relatively rich nations, rather than the world's poorest. A spokesman also highlighted the G20's failure to agree to 'a genuinely Green New Deal', which would help the economy by creating a swathe of green-collar jobs, while also constituting a major step towards tackling man-made climate change.

How can our leaders speak of recovery and a better world without major new initiatives and agreements on global warming, and measures to address severe poverty across the globe?

Perhaps we only care about the world's poorest people when we're doing okay. But we need to remember, as a recent IMF report highlighted, that it is developing nations that are hardest hit by the current downturn.

Many progressives will welcome the $1trillion deal, but ours is a wide-ranging set of objectives, a number of which the G20 seems to have ignored. If world leaders came together in a similar way to help the developing world or halt the dangerous overheating of our planet, we'd be much further down the path towards creating a green and fair global society. There is some hope on the climate issue, with the Copenhagen summit scheduled for the end of the year. However, because ministers missed the opportunity to pressure each other for environmental concessions while the economic heat was on, they will have to start from scratch come December.

Will Obama, Brown and other world leaders expend as much effort addressing poverty and climate change as they have brokering this economic deal? I doubt it. But I'd love to be proved wrong.

The author is a journalist and a member of DoSomethingAboutIt.org.uk. You can follow him on Twitter via www.twitter.com/mathewhulbert and you can read his blog at www.thetimeforjusticeisnow.blogspot.com. If you would like to submit an article for the blog section of our website, please get in touch. We're committed to open debate, so feel free to be critical and/or controversial. By the same token, views expressed in blog articles are those of the author or authors, not DoSomethingAboutIt.org.uk.

Mathew Hulbert, 3 April 2009

Leave a Comment

I am not a supporter of the Afghan 'adventure' but as an ex Probation Officer and ex soldier, it does seem that there may be some positive outcomes for both the Afghans and the west. I refer to the opium harvest. I feel that we should buy the harvest, process the product in Afghanistan, suply it on precription to addicts in the UK as wel as provide the processed drug to the NHS. This would have a number of positives. 1, It would provide legitimate employment for Afghans,giving them a decent standard of life and reduce the risks to our service personell. 2,It would cut out the dealers and ensure addicts were recieving a clean product and being weaned of their habit. 3, reduce crime at all levals, there by saving money and more importantly lives. 4,There is a shortage of diamorphine for medical purposes, this would reduce if not completly eradicate the problem. There is in my opinion no down side to this policy save to those who inhabit a morally higher plane that the rest of us, and choose to ignore the plight of the afghan people, the drug misuser and their families

-Bob Leitch

We need to remember that the poverty in the developing world if far from just a matter of economics and the current global downturn. Climate change will have a devastating effect on both health and poverty. Changes in health risks will be global for sure, but the poverty impacts will hit the same people who are struggling now. Governments need to think and talk more holistically if they really want to address the poverty issue or one cause will just be followed by another and then another. It isn't as if the impacts of climate change (and peak oil) on health and poverty can't be anticipated - they can, but who is talking about it?

-Roger Cotton

Bob Leitch is absolutely right and this is just the kind of issue that DSAI should be campaigning about IMO. However this is only example of the untold harm that the 'war on drugs' is creating on a global scale. There needs to be an acceptance that recreational drug use is a normal part of life for many people, always has been everywhere, and that in order to reduce potential harm, governments need to take over the control and supply of recreational drugs and stop punishing users. This would naturally include improved health education, health warnings where appropriate, protection of children, treatment of addicts etc. all of which could be paid for by the tax generated from legitimised sale.

-Alastair Banton

Something that always makes me despair is the gap between funds that developed nations promise, and funds they actually deliver. In appeal after appeal, from Tsunami relief to various earthquake efforts, the world's governments pledge billions and deliver millions. Why does no-one say more about this? We should hold these people to their word.

-Richard Beer

I agree that it makes economic sense to allow Afghanistan to grow poppies for the world's needs.....but then sense is not the main drive!I understand that the current trend is to burn the poppies in Afghanistan (because "the Afghans are providing drugs!") and pay European farmers to grow poppies for medical (diomorphine) and pharmacutical purposes. Common sense would say lets let the Afghans grow the poppies for global markets and we can save money on farming subsities and grow more food instead! But common sense will not previal because if it did then it would question why one half of the world is suffering malnutrition and the other half is being treated for obesity?

-Dee

It is patently obvious that the only beneficiaries of current drugs policy are criminal gangs. I have always wondered if those making policy have an ulterior motive intimately connected to their greed.

-Karen Fletcher


				©copyright owners of dosomethingaboutit.org.uk, dsai 2009