[DEBATE] : The G8: How to write about pointless international organisations

[Riaz K Tayob]

http://blogs.ft.com/rachmanblog/2008/07/the-g8-and-alan-beattie/#more-337


      The G8: How to write about pointless international organisations

Some readers may wonder why I chose to write my column this week about 
the International Criminal Court, rather than the obvious subject - the 
G8 meeting in Japan.

The reason is that I had a thoroughly discouraging lunch with my 
colleague, Alan Beattie. When I mentioned that I might write about the 
G8, he said - “Let me guess, you will say…” and proceeded to reel off a 
string of cliches, which had indeed been the basis of my putative column.

Alan then forwarded me a generic column on international institutions 
that he has written. It really says it all - and I think I may simply 
reproduce it, every year, round about G8 time.

It goes as follows:

    By reporters everywhere

    An ineffectual international organisation yesterday issued a stark
    warning about a situation it has absolutely no power to change, the
    latest in a series of self-serving interventions by toothless
    intergovernmental bodies.

    “We are seriously concerned about this most serious outbreak of
    seriousness,” said the head of the institution, either a former
    minister from a developing country or a mid-level European or
    American bureaucrat. “This is a wake-up call to the world. They must
    take on board the vital message that my
    organisation exists.”

    The director of the body, based in one of New York, Washington or an
    agreeable Western European city, was speaking at its annual
    conference, at which ministers from around the world gather to wring
    their hands impotently
    about the most fashionable issue of the day. The organisation has
    sought to justify its almost completely fruitless existence by joining
    its many fellow talking-shops in highlighting whatever crisis has
    recently gained most coverage in the global media.

    “Governments around the world must come together to combat whatever
    this year’s worrying situation has turned out to be,” the director
    said. “It is not yet time to panic, but if it goes on much further
    without my institution gaining some credit for sounding off on the
    issue, we will be justified in labelling it a crisis.”

    The organisation, whose existence the White House barely acknowledges
    and to which hardly any member government intends to give more money
    or extra powers, has long been fighting a war of attrition against its
    own irrelevance. By making a big deal out of the fact that the world’s
    most salient topical issue will be placed on its agenda and then
    issuing a largely derivative annual report on the subject, it hopes to
    convey the entirely erroneous impression that it has any influence
    whatsoever on the situation.

    The intervention follows a resounding call to action in the communiqué
    of the Group of [number goes here] countries at their recent summit in
    a remote place no-one had previously heard of. The G[number goes here]
    meeting was preceded by the familiar interminable and inconclusive
    discussions about whether the G[number goes here] was sufficiently
    representative of the international community, or whether it should be
    expanded into a G[number plus 1, 2 or higher goes here] including
    China, India or any other scary emerging market country that attendees
    cared to name.

    The story was given further padding by a study from an
    ambulance-chasing Washington think-tank, which warned that it would
    continue to convene media conference calls until its quixotic and
    politically suicidal plan to ameliorate whatever crisis was gathering
    had been given respectful though substantially undeserved attention.

    Ends