***THERE is something unsavory about wealth. It exudes greed, selfishness and

power. Those who have it can appear to be insensitive to others who are not so lucky. A fraternity of the rich and powerful like the G-8, is looked upon with reservation, suspicion and even apprehension. Those outside, find themselves guessing every time the rich and the powerful meet. Is it about growing more rich and hatching plans towards that end? Or is it about growing rich and sharing with others? If it is the latter can it be done without restructuring the international system that is extant? Those with an optimistic bent of mind keep hoping against hope.

The demonstrators belonging to civil society organisations of almost every stripe, who routinely turn up at the venue of G-8 meetings to protest, are convinced that wealth cannot be spread around and shared unless the existing international economic order is radically changed. They are particularly vocal and physically active against multinationals that represent global capitalism, which according to them, is the source of all evils afflicting the world. It is not, therefore, surprising that the recently concluded G-8 meeting at the French town of Evian had its due share of protesters with the standard spectacle of placards, banners and stone throwing. Mercifully, the demonstration did not turn ugly, as it often did in the past.

Miraculously also, it was business as usual inside the hotel on Lake Geneva, the site chosen for the meeting more for its safety from the protesters than for the picturesque beauty. For the first time in its history, the G-8 summit apprehended ugliness to bare its face, not

in the streets leading to Evian town, but inside the posh hotel where the G-8 leaders were to meet. This was the first meeting of the leaders representing America, Britain, France, Russia and Germany after the Iraq war and the air was full of foreboding. The relation between the two groups of countries, divided over the issue of war, had not yet returned back on track. The host country France, having taken the most vocally opposed stand against America, was a bit uneasy about the prospect of a face to face meeting between the two Presidents.

Both for omissions and commissions, the just concluded G-8 summit has been disappointing to the rest of the world and perhaps to many citizens of these countries. It rewarded America by endorsing its wish list to the hilt, forgetting that it has just carried out an illegal war. The old maxim has proved enduring: nothing succeeds like success.

Though France had let it be known that she was prepared to mend the relation without compromising over principles, America was not yet in a mood to forgive and forget. The American leaders at the top level, and the media abetted by it, have continued to berate and humiliate France over Iraq. Given this rancour, anything could happen in the G-8 meeting, from infantile silliness to dumb arrogance.

In the backdrop of nervous apprehension, ranging from diplomatic disaster to social faux pas, French charm, deployed at its best, carried the day. A sobered down and sublimated Bush obliged the host with public expression of equanimity. In the one to one meeting between the two Presidents, Bush Jr. observed that the two countries could disagree without being disagreeable. But even in his seemingly generous and civil mood was he insinuating against the French for being disagreeable in the run up to Iraq war? If the French had this Derridian puzzle, they did not go for hair splitting deconstruction to decipher the intent of the remark. On their part, the French maintained their position with aplomb, without regrets for the past and at the same time, expressing the desire to move forward in unity for common pur-

poses. With the major irritant and the source of a potentially disastrous conference out of the way, there was nothing to prevent the G-8 meeting from having a happy ending.

If the outcome of the meeting satisfied the members of the rich men's club, the outsiders in the rest of the world were left aghast. The G-8 meeting neither helped the cause of international peace in any substantive sense, nor promoted the issue of development, particularly for the poor. Though a few developing countries were invited to the,

meeting, their specific problems were not discussed. There was no mention about the pledge made by the rich countries recently in Mexico to make funds available for the Millennium Development Goals. Concerted international efforts to combat scourges in the form of killer diseases like malaria, tuberculosis and AIDS did not figure anywhere on the discussion. As regards global environment issues like global

warming, they were simply put under the carpet. The overriding objective of the meeting appeared to be placating America by papering over differences of views over Iraq war. The members of G-8 gave the impression of bending over backward to satisfy an America still grumbling and ranting about betrayal by allies. As if to assuage her heart feelings and ego the issues that got prominence in the meeting were mostly those that are top in the agenda of America's current global policy.

In the Final Declaration the G-8

leaders pledged unity to rebuild Iraq and move past their bitter division over the US-led war in Iraq. The French President declared, on behalf of the conference, that the G-8 leaders share the conviction that the time had now come to build peace and reconstruct Iraq. 'Our shared objective is a fully sovereign stable and democratic Iraq', the French President intoned. The declaration does not indicate any

change in American position regarding its exclusive and dominant role either in reconstruction or in nation building in Iraq. Not to speak of any member country of G-8, other than Britain, America has not even agreed to a central role for the UN. The Security Council, where all the G-8 countries except Japan were present, has just given the authority to the occupation forces led by America to be in overall command with regard to both the tasks. So where is the scope and opportunity of 'united' effort to reconstruct Iraq? How can G-8 leaders be optimistic

about a fully sovereign, stable and democratic Iraq when it is the Coalition Provisional Authority(CPA) headed by counter-terrorist expert Paul Bremmer that is spearheading nation building on the basis of the American agenda? How does the recent decision of the CPA to hand pick members for the Iraqi interim administration square with the idea of building a sovereign and democratic Iraq? Perhaps the acquiescence to American plan and the charade of unity is based on a sense of helplessness. It became evident long ago that America does not need the unity of G-8 or any other group to go ahead with its long term strategy in Iraq. But since such a declaration will legitimise whatever it is doing in Iraq, the gesture will be welcome. In fact, America wangled this statement from the G-8 leaders, excepting Blair, almost as a manifestation of their penitence.

If the above statement of unity over reconstruction and democracy building in Iraq did not convey sufficiently an obsequious attitude towards America, the warning to Iran and North Korea over their nuclear programme left no doubt about whose tune it was that they were dancing to. It was President Bush who two years ago, bracketed Iraq, Iran and North Korea in his 'axis of evil' speech. Having

taken out Iraq from the hit list, two countries remain to be tackled according to the American design. But as everyone knows, Iran and North Korea are not birds of the same feather. One has publicly repudiated non-proliferation treaty and is threatening to go nuclear, if already it has not done so. If America applied its doctrine of preemptive strike to North Korea a semblance of justification could be found. But apart from threatening with dire consequences, America has not taken any action that resembles even remotely what it did in the case of Iraq. Iran, on the other hand, is already under the shadow of America's war machine. It is building a nuclear power plant in a transparent manner and complying with the non-proliferation treaty. Inspection by IAEA is going on at regular intervals and the inspectors have not detected anything suspicious so far. Moreover, Russia, the supplier for the nuclear plant, has recently offered to America joint inspection and collaboration, which should allay any lingering apprehension.

So, bracketing of Iran with North Korea has no justification whatsoever unless America has other motive to single out Iran. The G-8 member countries in the Security Council did not oblige America by agreeing on Iraq's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction before the inspection was complete. They seem to be in a mood to do so now in case of Iran. Wittingly or unwittingly, they may have just given justification for future attack against Iran by America.

Both for omissions and commissions, the just concluded G-8 summit has been disappointing to the rest of the world and perhaps to many citizens of these countries. It rewarded America by endorsing its wish list to the hilt, forgetting that it has just carried out an illegal war. The old maxim has proved enduring: nothing succeeds like success.

Hasnat Abdul Hye is a former secretary, novelist and economist.***

THERE is something unsavory about wealth. It exudes greed, selfishness and

power. Those who have it can appear to be insensitive to others who are not so lucky. A fraternity of the rich and powerful like the G-8, is looked upon with reservation, suspicion and even apprehension. Those outside, find themselves guessing every time the rich and the powerful meet. Is it about growing more rich and hatching plans towards that end? Or is it about growing rich and sharing with others? If it is the latter can it be done without restructuring the international system that is extant? Those with an optimistic bent of mind keep hoping against hope.

The demonstrators belonging to civil society organisations of almost every stripe, who routinely turn up at the venue of G-8 meetings to protest, are convinced that wealth cannot be spread around and shared unless the existing international economic order is radically changed. They are particularly vocal and physically active against multinationals that represent global capitalism, which according to them, is the source of all evils afflicting the world. It is not, therefore, surprising that the recently concluded G-8 meeting at the French town of Evian had its due share of protesters with the standard spectacle of placards, banners and stone throwing. Mercifully, the demonstration did not turn ugly, as it often did in the past.

Miraculously also, it was business as usual inside the hotel on Lake Geneva, the site chosen for the meeting more for its safety from the protesters than for the picturesque beauty. For the first time in its history, the G-8 summit apprehended ugliness to bare its face, not

in the streets leading to Evian town, but inside the posh hotel where the G-8 leaders were to meet. This was the first meeting of the leaders representing America, Britain, France, Russia and Germany after the Iraq war and the air was full of foreboding. The relation between the two groups of countries, divided over the issue of war, had not yet returned back on track. The host country France, having taken the most vocally opposed stand against America, was a bit uneasy about the prospect of a face to face meeting between the two Presidents.

Though France had let it be known that she was prepared to mend the relation without compromising over principles, America was not yet in a mood to forgive and forget. The American leaders at the top level, and the media abetted by it, have continued to berate and humiliate France over Iraq. Given this rancour, anything could happen in the G-8 meeting, from infantile silliness to dumb arrogance.

In the backdrop of nervous apprehension, ranging from diplomatic disaster to social faux pas, French charm, deployed at its best, carried the day. A sobered down and sublimated Bush obliged the host with public expression of equanimity. In the one to one meeting between the two Presidents, Bush Jr. observed that the two countries could disagree without being disagreeable. But even in his seemingly generous and civil mood was he insinuating against the French for being disagreeable in the run up to Iraq war? If the French had this Derridian puzzle, they did not go for hair splitting deconstruction to decipher the intent of the remark. On their part, the French maintained their position with aplomb, without regrets for the past and at the same time, expressing the desire to move forward in unity for common pur-

poses. With the major irritant and the source of a potentially disastrous conference out of the way, there was nothing to prevent the G-8 meeting from having a happy ending.

If the outcome of the meeting satisfied the members of the rich men's club, the outsiders in the rest of the world were left aghast. The G-8 meeting neither helped the cause of international peace in any substantive sense, nor promoted the issue of development, particularly for the poor. Though a few developing countries were invited to the,

meeting, their specific problems were not discussed. There was no mention about the pledge made by the rich countries recently in Mexico to make funds available for the Millennium Development Goals. Concerted international efforts to combat scourges in the form of killer diseases like malaria, tuberculosis and AIDS did not figure anywhere on the discussion. As regards global environment issues like global

warming, they were simply put under the carpet. The overriding objective of the meeting appeared to be placating America by papering over differences of views over Iraq war. The members of G-8 gave the impression of bending over backward to satisfy an America still grumbling and ranting about betrayal by allies. As if to assuage her heart feelings and ego the issues that got prominence in the meeting were mostly those that are top in the agenda of America's current global policy.

In the Final Declaration the G-8

leaders pledged unity to rebuild Iraq and move past their bitter division over the US-led war in Iraq. The French President declared, on behalf of the conference, that the G-8 leaders share the conviction that the time had now come to build peace and reconstruct Iraq. 'Our shared objective is a fully sovereign stable and democratic Iraq', the French President intoned. The declaration does not indicate any

change in American position regarding its exclusive and dominant role either in reconstruction or in nation building in Iraq. Not to speak of any member country of G-8, other than Britain, America has not even agreed to a central role for the UN. The Security Council, where all the G-8 countries except Japan were present, has just given the authority to the occupation forces led by America to be in overall command with regard to both the tasks. So where is the scope and opportunity of 'united' effort to reconstruct Iraq? How can G-8 leaders be optimistic

about a fully sovereign, stable and democratic Iraq when it is the Coalition Provisional Authority(CPA) headed by counter-terrorist expert Paul Bremmer that is spearheading nation building on the basis of the American agenda? How does the recent decision of the CPA to hand pick members for the Iraqi interim administration square with the idea of building a sovereign and democratic Iraq? Perhaps the acquiescence to American plan and the charade of unity is based on a sense of helplessness. It became evident long ago that America does not need the unity of G-8 or any other group to go ahead with its long term strategy in Iraq. But since such a declaration will legitimise whatever it is doing in Iraq, the gesture will be welcome. In fact, America wangled this statement from the G-8 leaders, excepting Blair, almost as a manifestation of their penitence.

If the above statement of unity over reconstruction and democracy building in Iraq did not convey sufficiently an obsequious attitude towards America, the warning to Iran and North Korea over their nuclear programme left no doubt about whose tune it was that they were dancing to. It was President Bush who two years ago, bracketed Iraq, Iran and North Korea in his 'axis of evil' speech. Having

taken out Iraq from the hit list, two countries remain to be tackled according to the American design. But as everyone knows, Iran and North Korea are not birds of the same feather. One has publicly repudiated non-proliferation treaty and is threatening to go nuclear, if already it has not done so. If America applied its doctrine of preemptive strike to North Korea a semblance of justification could be found. But apart from threatening with dire consequences, America has not taken any action that resembles even remotely what it did in the case of Iraq. Iran, on the other hand, is already under the shadow of America's war machine. It is building a nuclear power plant in a transparent manner and complying with the non-proliferation treaty. Inspection by IAEA is going on at regular intervals and the inspectors have not detected anything suspicious so far. Moreover, Russia, the supplier for the nuclear plant, has recently offered to America joint inspection and collaboration, which should allay any lingering apprehension.

So, bracketing of Iran with North Korea has no justification whatsoever unless America has other motive to single out Iran. The G-8 member countries in the Security Council did not oblige America by agreeing on Iraq's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction before the inspection was complete. They seem to be in a mood to do so now in case of Iran. Wittingly or unwittingly, they may have just given justification for future attack against Iran by America.

Both for omissions and commissions, the just concluded G-8 summit has been disappointing to the rest of the world and perhaps to many citizens of these countries. It rewarded America by endorsing its wish list to the hilt, forgetting that it has just carried out an illegal war. The old maxim has proved enduring: nothing succeeds like success.

Hasnat Abdul Hye is a former secretary, novelist and economist.