What happened at the G20 Summit?

Police officers in riot gear scuffle with demonstrators near the Bank of England in London April 1, 2009. Thousands of demonstrators converged on London's financial district on Wednesday, chanting "abolish money" and "storm the banks" in a heavily policed protest to coincide with the G20 summit of world leaders.

REUTERS/Andrew Winning (BRITAIN POLITICS BUSINESS CONFLICT SOCIETY)

In his post G-20 conference U.S. President Barack Obama made several statements. Overall he had been well received by his counterparts and remained very confident in stating his positions. There were a couple of comments made I didn't necessarily agree with. One being, "In America, there's a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world," Obama said. He further stated, "Instead of celebrating Europe's dynamic union and seeking to work with you, there have been times where America's shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive. But in Europe, there is an anti-Americanism that is at once casual, but can also be insidious. Instead of recognizing the good that America so often does in the world, there have been times where Europeans chose to blame America for much of what's bad," Obama said.

Athough I do agree with the anti-americanism statement. I did not agree with how he perceives our view of Europe and our supposed arrogance. When the whole concept of the word including it's origin came from Europe exclusively.

He added: "On both sides of the Atlantic, these attitudes have become all too common. They are not wise. They do not represent the truth." I whole heartedly agree with this statement because none of this nonsense either way seems to really represent any truth at all. With so much secrecy in the world today it's hard whether to know if your coming or going from one day to the next. Confusion creates dissention and the fact that the public suffers from a lack of information, these attitudes would be common. However in the prior claim of arrogance on behalf of the U.S. I would have rather him be more specific and say the arrogance of the George Bush Administration. I don't believe anyone can disagree with that.

During the summit Obama also encouraged Europe to support his new Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy.

"I understand there's doubt about this war in Europe," Obama said. "There's doubt even in the United States."

But he said the United States and its allies must continue to work to defeat the "terrorists who threaten all of us." And, he said Europeans and Americans had to look past disagreements over Iraq.

Obama opposed the Iraq war, which divided America from many of its traditional allies and was the source of bitter relations between the U.S. and Europe.

"We got sidetracked by Iraq and we have not fully recovered that initial insight that we have a mutual interest in ensuring that organizations like al-Qaida cannot operate," he said. "I think it is important for Europe to understand that even though I am president and George Bush is not president, al-Qaida is still a threat."

In Germany, Merkel said her country wants to bear its share of the responsibility in Afghanistan, and Obama thanked her for what Germany already has done.

But Obama also said: "We do expect that all NATO partners are going to contribute. They have thus far, but the progress in some cases has been uneven." He added, "We're going to refocus the strategy and then make sure the resources are there to do it."

Earlier in France, the president said he wants to look back at his tenure and know his work drastically lessened the threat of terrorism, particularly nuclear terrorism.

"We can't reduce the threat of a nuclear weapon going off unless those that possess the most nuclear weapons — the United States and Russia — take serious steps to reduce our stockpiles," Obama said. "So we want to pursue that vigorously in the years ahead."

On a good note President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev earlier this week pledged a new effort to reduce both nations' nuclear arsenals.

The U.S. President also was not afraid to touch on topics controversial in Europe. Obama promoted his decision to close the U.S. prison camp at Guantanamo Bay within a year, and said "without equivocation that the United States does not and will not torture."

Earlier, in a symbolic gesture, French President Nicolas Sarkozy told Obama that France would accept a prisoner from the detention center where terrorist suspects are held if that would facilitate its closing.

Saying that he was determined to "speak the truth," Sarkozy said that Guantanamo "was not in keeping with U.S. values." He said democratic states have a responsibility to speak honestly and do what they say, and that Guantanamo was a contradiction in that standard.

Obama said the U.S. needs help in finding a place to send those held at the center. He thanked Sarkozy for "being good to his word."

About 240 detainees are still held, some without charge at the Guantanamo Bay prison, which was set up after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to hold so-called "enemy combatants" accused of links to the al-Qaida terror network or the Taliban. Spain and Portugal have already said they could accept prisoners, while Germany and others remain tightlipped whether they will accept non-nationals or not.

The following are quotes from leaders at the summit:

RUSSIAN PRESIDENT DMITRY MEDVEDEV

"Twenty or 25 years ago it would be impossible to imagine a situation when so different nations, with so different economies, various mentalities and historical traditions could sit down at the same table and be able to agree on how to act in such a complicated situation, and to do it fairly fast!"

"The speed with which we are acting at least makes me think that many of the decisions we are taking will be pretty effective."

SOUTH AFRICAN PRESIDENT KGALEMA MOTLANTHE

Crisis measures: "We are all concerned about the fact that the bottom of the crisis is not visible yet and therefore are aware and alive to the fact that the decisive and courageous steps that have been taken to stem the freefall may not be adequate to address the full impact of this crisis."

SPANISH PRIME MINISTER JOSE LUIS ZAPATERO

"This summit contributes to confidence ... and will facilitate recovery" "We have set in motion the greatest concerted plan of fiscal expansion in history. it is unprecedented. it reaches 5 trillion.....This amount will contribute in a decisive way to facilitate a recovery of the world economy and to preserve millions of jobs"

JAPANESE PRIME MINISTER TARO ASO

On another G20 summit: "It would be the easiest for countries to gather during the U.N. General Assembly in New York. Plus, New York is where it (the crisis) started. The United States and others have proposed New York and we think this is a good idea."

ITALY PRIME MINISTER SILVIO BERLUSCONI

Trade: "On the Doha trade round we decided we will look more closely at the issue and fix a meeting at Maddalena to make a final decision."

EU PRESIDENT JOSE MANUEL BARROSO

"It is an historic moment, a defining moment for our global response to the crisis...We took the right decisions," he told the BBC.

Trade: "Many participants underlined the importance of the Doha trade talks for promoting economic recovery. For Europe it's the cheapest way of doing it as you are not creating debt.

US: "The fact that President Obama showed a willingness to engage, it's a very good signal that we may reach that agreement during this year."

THAI PRIME MINISTER ABHISIT VEJJAJIVA, REPRESENTING ASEAN

"We are pleased that the communique covered a lot of ground and responded to our needs. The stimulus package is now clearly focussed on jobs and growth. And we are doing it through global financial institutions, not just individual country efforts. The various reforms in terms of the global financial institutions and the new facilities again respond better to the needs of emerging and developing economies. We are not losing sight of medium and longer term goals in terms of development."

Obviously optimism is brighter for some than others. There is a certain amount of skepticism in the outcome of steps being taken. However overall it would seem the general consensus was extremely positive in the eyes of world leaders.

In the meantime the U.S. jobless rate jumped to 8.5 percent. The highest since late 1983, as a wide range of employers eliminated a net total of 663,000 jobs in March. In Germany, Obama called the new unemployment report a "stark reminder" of the nation's woes.

Thousands of G-20 protesters jammed downtown London on Wednesday and some tried to storm the Bank of England, pelting police with eggs and fruit and rocking the barricades designed to control them. Hmmm I wonder why?

The answer was spoken very loudly as demonstrators shouted "Abolish Money!" and clogged streets in the financial district known as "The City" even as Prime Minister Gordon Brown and President Barack Obama held a news conference elsewhere in the British capital.

Demonstrators hoisted effigies of the "four horsemen of the apocalypse," representing war, climate chaos, financial crimes and homelessness.

At least eight people were reportedly arrested for having police uniforms. One police officer lost his helmet and demonstrators tossed it around like a trophy and chanted slogans.

Helicopters hovered above the protests and some buildings were boarded up in case the protests turned ugly. Many banks had extra security and hundreds of police officers lined the streets.

Despite the pushing and shoving along the police barricades, there were no reported injuries.

Protesters included anarchists, anti-capitalists, environmentalists, students, unionized workers, unemployed workers and others hurt by the global financial crisis.

Fearing they would be targeted by protesters, some bankers swapped their pinstripe suits for casual wear and others stayed home. Bolder financial workers leaned out their office windows Wednesday, taunting demonstrators and waving 10 pound notes at them. Many banks in the capital brought in extra security, and several streets were closed off entirely. Especially in Britain, bankers have been lambasted as being greedy and blamed for the recession that is making jobless ranks soar.

"It seems like everything is in a mess," said protester Steve Johnson, 49, an unemployed construction worker. "You get bankers getting massive bonuses, and the MPs (British lawmakers) are lining their own pockets."

Musician and political activist Billy Bragg said the time was now to make a difference. "It's better than sitting down shouting at the television at these bankers," he said. "We cannot go back to the way things were before to the million-dollar bonus culture."

"The greed that is driving people is tearing us apart," said Steve Lamont, 45, flanked by his family and protesters who were banging on bells, playing drums and blowing whistles.

"Every job I apply for there's already 150 people who have also applied," said protester Nathan Dean, 35, who lost his information technology job three weeks ago. "I have had to sign on to the dole (welfare) for the first time in my life. You end up having to pay your mortgage on your credit card and you fall into debt twice over."

Wow what a week! This is our reality!

Michelle Obama hugs the Queen!

Oh no everybody run! The queen has just been touched! The queen has just been touched! Get out of here with that nonsense. The queen obviously didn't mind and was actually the first to extend her arm around the first lady. So what's all the fuss about?

It never ceases to amaze the worthless amount of time spent on such trivial matters by our mainstream media. Do any of us really care if there was any unofficial protocol broken? Do we really care if the queen were to be offended? I would have to believe that most peoples answer would be a resounding "no". None of us care about this type stuff because it really doesn't make any of us money or affect our lifestyle at all. We have big bills that require all of our attention. As well as domestic issues that deserve more attention than just a wag of the tail.

Mainstream media is so utterly repulsive at times with the topics and stories covered, making their overall function at times seem like a waste of time. The attention that a simple gesture between two prominent ladies had received is a terrible waste of time, making the top of every news reel around the globe. As if there is no real stories to cover. Media seems to have watered down over the past several years.

No one asks the tough question anymore. The semi-tough questions that do arise have no follow up questions from reporters after their initial questions receive either vague or no answers at all. Some media pundits afraid to go against the grain in their line of question in fear their media pass maybe revoked. So what do these people do? They produce sugar-coated politically correct stories, with partisan views and a lust for quantitative ratings versus quality journalism. I'm sure somewhere in the world there is a story of better substance and value than two peoples casually touching one another. Or is there?

People Just Don't Seem to Believe!

Well it seems as if there has come a question into my credibility on the topics I have been discussing as of recently. I am simply a person that has taken the time to study in observance of the current events around us on a daily basis for the past 23 years. In the same manor some child prodigies take up ballet or piano I had a strong interest in global politics.

I can recall a time when I was on my way to school and had witnessed on live television the failure of NASA's Challenger mission and the emotion that came along with it. I can recall Reagonomics effect on already impoverished communities. I can recall the presidential debates my elders had no interest in watching that as a child, just as well as an interest to vote in elections they cared not to.

I am one of the victims. Just the same as billions of others like me. Your race or creed has no place here. In the hearts of the free our color knows no bounds. Our previous generation realized this very thing all to fall to struggle and forget that struggle must go on. The fight must continue as only meager concessions have been waged, driving us deeper into a systematic industrialized form of slavery. For every concession made on behalf of the government we have had to pay ten-fold. These people pop out of nowhere as representatives and people would like to question what I know. My statement to you all is that it's not so much that I know but more so that I pose the question. The evidence is the evidence. It is not my place to make a decision for you either way.

However when confronted with the truth there will be 98% of us that reject that truth and there will 2% of us that except that truth. Believe it or not our 2% will be stronger than the 98% percent although we are so heavily outnumbered. 98% of the people are fake, 2% are true. 1% look out for self and 1% look out for themselves and you. Whether family, friend, stranger, associate, to indiscretionary people you have met and not met. This universal rule stays the same.

I went to school averaging a 3.6 GPA, majored in Psychology in college since the local college in my area did not offer Public Relations as a major. I had to take classes geared toward PR to substitute for their lack thereof(psych, human relations, speech, PR). My Father wasn't fully involved at that time and my Mother had moved away not long before i graduated high school. She made too much money and claimed me on her taxes holding up the funding I needed for school. With the immediate need for a roof over my head being imminent, I attained a full time job and dropped out of school to maintain a one-bedroom apartment I was blessed with.

Where a lot of my peers had to learn at the pace of the teachers whose class they took. I actually had the advantage of going to the library all day everyday to soak up the plethora of knowledge available to me. I had acquired various jobs primarily sales positions and experienced my ups and downs like everyone else. Even at my worst I always represented the top 2% of my sales force in every company I was employed, creating a short track record for short term sustainable income. Growing up I have lived in the ghettos to the valleys, worked in every environment from restaurants to corporate offices overlooking the beach.

I literally began from the bottom, above where some people have the opportunity to start. I was resilient and worked very hard to seek higher business oriented goals and achieved them on many fronts in a relatively short period of time. In a span of a few years I had earned not only more money than I had earned in all my previous life but also more money than most people make in 5-10 years, legally. Not only specializing in consumer sales but business-to-business sales as well. Regardless of my professional resume in which of course there is plenty more. I am a person who is and has taken time to understand what is going on around us though constant study and research.

I have no religious belief, although I do believe in God and his power. I am completely bi-partisan in race, gender, creed, or political background. I stand for truth, honor and God's way. I simply pose the questions to spark the food for the brain that will seek the appropriate answers. The world is not truly ready for the beliefs that I have as of yet. When it seems as if they run from the truth every convenience they get. I am a sane man who lives vicariously through the hope of life and freedom for our children. A freedom falsely realized by previous generations that may be universal for future generations if we do our job now.

Our job is to become comfortable with the subjects and topics that are most uncomfortable for us. Our job is to lobby for the rights our fore fathers have died for. Our job is to be the smart, great people we can be without fear of repercussion. This is the time we learn what will hold value to us in the event there is no money. Do you know what you value? I know what I value. So before doubting the information you see, prove it wrong. Don't take just one story for it but look at it from all available perspectives. Be wise enough to understand if the multiple perspectives are really one of the same.

Feel free to contact me with anything you don't understand, before assuming it doesn't interest you or you simply just doubting my credibility on the matter. I will at anytime provide you with multiple sources to answer your multiple questions. So God bless and wake up!

The G-20 Summit is this week!

The G20 conference is this week. What does it mean to you? This is not only an annual meeting of the industrial powers of the world. It's more so an ongoing institution that confers on a regular basis. Consisting of the U.S., UK & EU, china, Australia, France, Germany, Russia, Japan, South Africa, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Canada, Italy, Mexico, India, Korea, Brazil, Argentina and Turkey. Since it's inception in 1999 there has been many disputes over it's overall intentions of globalization, stealing the spotlight for the previously targeted G7.

The difference between the two is as follows, with this description coming directly from the G20 web-site: The G-7 was established in 1976 as an informal forum of seven major industrial economies: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. The G-7 conducts dialogue and seeks agreement on current economic issues on the basis of the comparable interests of those countries. The G-20 was established in 1999 and reflects the diverse interests of the systemically significant industrial and emerging-market economies. (see: About the G-20). It has a high degree of representativeness and legitimacy on account of its geographical composition (members are drawn from all continents) and its large share of global population (two-thirds) and world GNP (around 90 per cent). The G-20's broad representation of countries at different stages of development gives its consensus outcomes greater impact than those of the G-7.

In 1980 the G7 accounted for roughly 50% of the purchasing power parity valuation of the world's total GDP. With the rise in emerging market economies which are countries who once were insignificant in terms of global trade and total world output, the percentage of global GDP represented by the original g7 fell to 42% by 2005. As countries like China grew an outstanding 500% in that 25 year period from 3% to 15% of the global GDP. India rose from 3% to 6% with the remaining EME's (emerging market economies) growing 1% from 9% to 10%. Essentially saying that in a growing global economy growth these EME's have grown industrially to attain a larger share of the global market. In 25 years the total GDP had grown from $12.8 billion to a little over $61 billion annually between 1980-2005. So basically the inception of the G20 had been put in place to account for the rising representation of these EME's in the global market place and solidify a larger percentage of the total GDP by forging in depth marketing strategies with these emerging countries. Thus offsetting the 42% of the G7's GDP to represent over 85% of the globe's total GDP through this one group. Leaving it fairly obvious to see the advantage of them doing so, as larger market shares means a greater chance at changing or shaping International economic policies.

Groups such as these have always amounted a certain paranoia over concerned citizens fearful of globalization and bureaucratic policies. This past week has had an even greater effect as thousands poured into the streets throughout Western Europe in protest over the annual meeting of the G20. People are frustrated over a failing global economy in which the G20 represents almost 90% of its GDP, insufficient healthcare and environmental policies. With the global economy in such a bad state the turnout of protesters this past weekend has been unprecedented, expecting to rise in number throughout the week as world leaders converge to discuss these issues.

Rightfully so that these people protest. Upon researching the G20 web-site I had found that as group the G20 was fully aware of the harmful policies in the financial sector that has led to our recent economic downfall as early as 2006. The following excerpts have been taken directly from a PDF file on their web-site entitled, THE ROLE OF THE G-20 IN THE GLOBAL FINANCIAL ARCHITECTURE: "In response to the concern that international institutions have been insufficiently responsive to the changing structure of the global economy, the G-20 placed a priority on improving the legitimacy and credibility of the international financial institutions, especially the IMF."

The document further states , the growing economic weight of the EMEs is both a consequence and a driver of the globalisation of economic activity. As many people have noted, including the Lowy Institute, the world is becoming more integrated. There has been rapid expansion in cross-border economic activity in the past 25 years-including expanding trade, broad liberalisation and deregulation of domestic markets and institutions, growth of multinational enterprises and increasing mobility of people.

So right there they have basically just told us that they were aware of the effects of our recent growth and deregulation in advance, feeling the necessity to establish legitimacy of these practices. Naturally this document wasn't initially made readily available to the public, as most are not. However it is the aftermath of all this that seems to enrage people the most. Policy makers seem to always have the right answer until something goes wrong in our eyes and all of a sudden these same policy makers play ignorant to these happenings, claiming to have no knowledge of how these things came about.....funny!

Some major media outlets simply write the summit up as simply an annual meeting of world leaders to discuss economic issues and partnerships in an informal fashion. When in actuality as explained below that there is a lot more to it than that. None of it which do we need a college degree to understand either.

Each G-20 host year culminates in the meeting of Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors, usually toward the end of the year. But there are also a number of supporting meetings during the host year. The critical point about the meeting structure for the G-20 is that discussions are underpinned by a strong analytical framework, thus ensuring they are of high quality. The framework is advanced through workshops (up to three per year), where the best thinkers from around the world address issues of importance to the G-20 with officials, and two deputies' meetings, which refine the policy issues to be discussed by Ministers and Governors. This means that Ministers and Governors are provided with contemporary analysis and insights, which better informs their consideration of policy challenges and solutions.

The G-20 has processes which ensure a smooth transfer of functions between host countries. The management of the G-20 is shared by a ‘troika’ of current, past and future chairs (currently Australia, China and South Africa). While the current chair country is ultimately responsible for the policy agenda and logistical preparations for its host year, the troika ensures continuity across host years by overseeing policy development and logistical preparations.

In addition to the management continuity provided by the troika, there is continuity in the policy themes discussed in each host year. Typically, a policy theme might be discussed over several years, providing many opportunities to get to grips with the various implications of that theme at a detailed level. An example is demographic change, which has been on the G-20 agenda since 2004. This issue has been considered from several angles, including the implications of ageing populations for domestic economic policy, the role of migration and migrant remittances from both a demographic and development perspective and, this year, the financial market implications of demographic change.

The meetings are relatively informal, with only small delegations allowed in the meeting room; deputies’ meetings are limited to a finance ministry and central bank representative and one senior official from each organisation; the G-20 meeting is limited to the minister, the governor and one senior official from each member country.

Through early engagement, we can influence the direction and progress of economic development and build closer linkages with important emerging market countries. This is where the G-20 can play a major role by giving a voice to these emerging economic powers and exposing them to the types of policies pursued by successful market economies.

I have argued that the G-20's structure and institutional features give it a unique degree of legitimacy and influence over the management of the global economy. In fact, the G-20 has already established a track record as an effective forum which promotes open and constructive dialogue that secures practical outcomes. To sum up, I believe the G-20 has a key role in shaping global economic policy.

In contrast to many of the more mature international forums, the G-20 brings together the key global economic players of the 21st century and is structured to encourage open and effective policy dialogue. The fact that its agenda can be shaped by, and the group chaired by, China, Australia, South Africa and a (yet to be determined) South American4 economy in a given four-year period is testament to the changing global and economic power distribution.

With all that said it would seem there is sufficient reason to believe there may be more to these informal meetings that meet the eye. All of which accumulated with the recent economy woes has prompted over 35,000 to protest in the streets of London, with Scotland Yard is expecting a greater challenge on Wednesday 1 April, dubbed "Financial Fools Day", with a series of protests aiming to cause disruption in the Square Mile and elsewhere. Milton McKenzie, 73, from Essex, had said: "How the hell can we have a situation here in Britain where we have people out of work and the bankers just cream it off and are helped by the government."

The director of the the Adam Smith Institute, Dr Eamonn Butler, said governments have caused the economic crisis. This nearly universal sentiment has taken root in other places as well. In Berlin, thousands of protesters have also taken to the streets with a message to the G20 leaders: "We won't pay for your crisis". Another march took place in the city of Frankfurt. The demonstrations attracted as many as 20,000 people. Banners accused the Germany government of being too willing to spend billions bailing out financial institutions and too slow to protect ordinary workers, the BBC's Steve Rosenberg said from Berlin. In Rome, protesters threw red paint, egg and smoke bombs at banks, insurance companies and estate agencies in their protest. Students and left-wing activists were among those who took part in the march, which organizers said had drawn around 6,000 people. In Vienna, at least 6,500 people, according to the police, marched to protest about the effects of globalisation.

Several hundred demonstrators turned out in Paris, where they erected and demolished a model of an island symbolizing a tax haven. Hundreds also attended an anti-globalization protest in Madrid. U.S. Vice President Joe Biden, meanwhile, called for protesters to give governments a chance to tackle the economic crisis at a conference of center-left politicians in Chile. "I would hope that the protesters give us a chance, listen to what we have to say and hopefully we can make it clear to them that we're going to walk away from this G20 meeting with some concrete proposals," he said.

A group of fewer than 200 anarchists joined the march and were kept isolated and surrounded by police. Chants of "Burn the bankers!" were the closest anyone came to any show of aggression despite a heavy police presence and a few buildings along the route, including the Ritz Hotel, boarding up their windows. As protesters passed the gates of Downing Street, there were chants and shouts of "Enjoy the overtime".

Chris Knight, the anthropology professor suspended from the University of East London last week for suggesting that bankers might be lynched, was wandering the march alone. "I just met a copper and I said to him, 'Is this the revolution?' He said: 'No, this is the dry run, the revolution starts on Wednesday. Midweek is when we will really start to dance'."

There have been fears that banks and other financial institutions could be the focus for violent protests. A huge security operation is under way in the run-up to the G20 summit, at which world leaders will discuss the glooming global financial crisis and other issues.
A protester told the Observer he believed the protest marked "the start of a grassroots movement". He added: "This is a moment. This is the first time people have had a chance to come out on to the streets in a big way." Commander Simon O'Brien, one of the senior command team in charge of policing security, said: "It's fair to say that this [the march] is one of the largest, one of the most challenging and one of the most complicated operations we have delivered.

"G20 is attracting a significant amount of interest from protest groups. There is an almost unprecedented level of activity going on."

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who will host the G20 summit in East London, said over the weekend: "The action that is happening in London today I understand and will respond to it at the G20."

Claire Melamed of ActionAid said the organizers of the protests were delighted with the turnout. "We're really pleased. We are hearing every day about people losing jobs and not being able to feed their children as this economic crisis deepens. We want the G20 to listen to us - this began as a financial crisis and it's turning into a humanitarian one."

The previous march will be followed by a series of protests on Wednesday and Thursday by a variety of coalitions and groups campaigning on a range of subjects, from poverty, inequality and jobs to war, climate change and capitalism.

for more info on the role of the G20: http://www.g20.org/Documents/role_g20_global_fin_arch_091006.pdf

or http://www.g20.org