The G7 was established in 1976 with the stated objective of stabilising the world economy. Providing a stable framework for global economic growth is still the main priority for the G8 today. With corporate control over the democratic process reaching unparalleled levels in all the G8 countries, what this 'stability' increasingly means in policy terms for the G8, is making life easier for transnational corporations.
The G8 is intended as a forum to build consensus amongst the world's most powerful nations. Whatever their differences on a raft of different policy issues, all the G8 leaders embrace without question the Washington Consensus, the political position that favours the breaking down of all barriers to corporate trade and investment, based on the belief that private companies and market systems always find the most efficient way to share out resources. The development of the Washington Consensus was spurred during the 1970s by the desire to challenge national governments in the global South, many of which had adopted central economic planning methods to try to reduce their dependence on the former colonial powers. It was also intended to challenge social movements in the North, such as the powerful trade unions. During this time, other informal networks were set up to co-ordinate the interests of those in power, both corporate and governmental, such as the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the Trilateral Commission – what is this?. Meanwhile, existing global institutions such as the IMF and World Bank also increasingly become agents for privatisation and de-regulation.
In 1995, the World Trade Organisation (WTO) was established as the main engine for trade and investment liberalisation. Four original G7 nations (The European Union, the USA, Canada and Japan) co-ordinate their trade negotiating positions at the WTO through the so-called Quadrilateral Group (or Quad). With the G8 governments controlling over half of the votes at World Bank and IMF meetings, the Gleneagles summit will be just one part of a continual process by which trade and business agreements are thrashed out between powerful Western governments and corporations.
DIRECT CORPORATE INVOLVEMENT AT THE G8 Since 1995, corporate leaders have been directly involved in G8 governance, in an increasing variety of ways. For the Twenty-First Century summits, they have worked with governments, NGOs, multilateral organisations and others to mount and manage the Digital Opportunities Task Force (Dot Force), the Renewable Energy Task Force and the Global Health Fund, set up along with the United Nations to fight HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis. Within these task forces we see a familiar pattern of corporate influence and corporate gain. The Renewables Task Force, which reported in 2002, was co-chaired by the former chairman of Shell, Mark Moody-Stuart, and in 2002 the Global Health Fund was accused of only offering to finance corporate patented drugs instead of their often cheaper generic alternatives. Where corporations don't have an official seat at the table, they send their influential lobbyists. Before the the 2003 Evian G8 Summit, six powerful international business organisations – including the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and European Round Table of Industrialists (ERT) – united for the first time to issue a joint statement pressuring the G8 to keep to the free-trade commitments of the Doha WTO meeting of 2001. The statement also lobbied against the regulation of corporate behaviour and for the promotion of technology, in particular biotechnology. As a key player in coordinating the global economy, the Paris-based ICC has been eagerly invited into the G8 process. The president of the G8 (the leader of the summit's host country, i.e. Tony Blair this year) always meets the ICC chair on the eve of the Summit. In 2005, the ICC chair is Yong Sung Park, head of the virulently anti-union South Korean construction company, Doosan Heavy Industries, which builds power plants including nuclear energy facilities. The ICC's policies as represented to the G8 come as no surprise – they are in favour of the completion of the Doha WTO round and against tougher regulation of corporate behaviour. The G8 leaders believe, as do many in power, that a corporate-dominated world leads to raised living standards and stable economies. The G8 rhetoric for 2005, as it focuses on Africa and climate change, has been heavily loaded with phrases such as 'sustainability' or 'political freedom and rising prosperity'. However, on closer scrutiny, we can see that the years of the Washington Consensus have brought us a world dominated by a widening gap between rich and poor, widespread environmental destruction, and less, not more, political freedom. The G8's solution to these evident problems seems to be to call on corporations to cure the diseases that they themselves have created.
DIRECT CORPORATE INVOLVEMENT AT THE G8 Since 1995, corporate leaders have been directly involved in G8 governance, in an increasing variety of ways. For the Twenty-First Century summits, they have worked with governments, NGOs, multilateral organisations and others to mount and manage the Digital Opportunities Task Force (Dot Force), the Renewable Energy Task Force and the Global Health Fund, set up along with the United Nations to fight HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis. Within these task forces we see a familiar pattern of corporate influence and corporate gain. The Renewables Task Force, which reported in 2002, was co-chaired by the former chairman of Shell, Mark Moody-Stuart, and in 2002 the Global Health Fund was accused of only offering to finance corporate patented drugs instead of their often cheaper generic alternatives. Where corporations don't have an official seat at the table, they send their influential lobbyists. Before the the 2003 Evian G8 Summit, six powerful international business organisations – including the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and European Round Table of Industrialists (ERT) – united for the first time to issue a joint statement pressuring the G8 to keep to the free-trade commitments of the Doha WTO meeting of 2001. The statement also lobbied against the regulation of corporate behaviour and for the promotion of technology, in particular biotechnology. As a key player in coordinating the global economy, the Paris-based ICC has been eagerly invited into the G8 process. The president of the G8 (the leader of the summit's host country, i.e. Tony Blair this year) always meets the ICC chair on the eve of the Summit. In 2005, the ICC chair is Yong Sung Park, head of the virulently anti-union South Korean construction company, Doosan Heavy Industries, which builds power plants including nuclear energy facilities. The ICC's policies as represented to the G8 come as no surprise – they are in favour of the completion of the Doha WTO round and against tougher regulation of corporate behaviour. The G8 leaders believe, as do many in power, that a corporate-dominated world leads to raised living standards and stable economies. The G8 rhetoric for 2005, as it focuses on Africa and climate change, has been heavily loaded with phrases such as 'sustainability' or 'political freedom and rising prosperity'. However, on closer scrutiny, we can see that the years of the Washington Consensus have brought us a world dominated by a widening gap between rich and poor, widespread environmental destruction, and less, not more, political freedom. The G8's solution to these evident problems seems to be to call on corporations to cure the diseases that they themselves have created.