The G-Zero scenario
- Supreme Court issues notice to Goa Police, agrees to hear Tejpal's bail plea in sexual assault case
- Elections 2014 LIVE: Modi says poverty is a 'tourist destination' for Rahul
- 78 pc turnout, but few can show ink mark
- Giriraj Singh defiant despite FIR, says he stands by his 'Modi critics must go to Pak' remarks
- RSS appeal to âmajorityâ: Vote or become history
Differences at the G-20 summit suggest it may be every nation for itself now.
Back in 1999, when the G-20 replaced the G-8 and was formally constituted, the world was a far more secure place. The agenda for the 20 member states was focused on one ambition: the promotion of international financial stability. Following the latest summit in St Petersburg last week, it is safe to say that the seven meetings that took place between the heads of government yielded little. The G-20 met in the shadow of global financial instability and the threat of a possible strike on Syria, backed by only two of its members, the US and France. The rest, including summit host Russia, are either vehemently opposed to any military operation or will only support UN-sponsored action. While the latest compromise solution could stave off military action, differences regarding the global economic meltdown and the weapons needed to tackle it were also evident. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's stated objective was "an orderly exit from the unconventional monetary policies being pursued by the developed world for the last few years". It's a case, clearly, of each member country looking after its individual interests rather than the greater global good. Even within the BRICS umbrella, India's economic travails received scant support from Russia and China.
So, is the world in 2013 in the throes of what author and geopolitical analyst Ian Bremmer labelled the G-Zero? Last year, Bremmer argued in his book, Every Nation for Itself, that the world was facing a leadership vacuum, with the US in decline and China still struggling with economic uncertainty and disparity. Moreover, he believes that the diverse political and economic values of the G-20 have produced a global gridlock. His core argument is, given that so many challenges transcend borders, the need for international cooperation has never been greater, while, paradoxically, countries across the world are growing increasingly insular. The global leadership vacuum, he predicted, would provoke uncertainty, volatility, competition and, in some cases, open conflict.
- 21-year-old dies in road mishap, one injured
- Ask Badals where is Ludhiana Metro: Bhattal to locals
- Arrests in priest murder case divide Catholic Church
- Short Change: EPFO to allot permanent account number to active subscribers by Oct 15
- India Inc profit set to grow, but margins under pressure
- Mulayam: Will amend Constitution for Muslim quota