Terrorism and growth on G8 agenda

THE G8 are meeting once again. Large sections of Northern Ireland have been cordoned off and enclosed in razor wire. It is certainly not a new experience in the province but given that the last 15 years have been politically devoted to tearing down barriers, it’s a little ironic.

The self-appointed most powerful nations in the world have come together to discuss the issues of the day. This essentially amounts to two things; how to combat “terrorism” and how to increase “growth”.

In the first instance, there is discord on what constitutes terrorism because there are differing opinions on what is happening in Syria. The British and Americans are convinced that the proof, supposedly secured by the French, that the Assad regime has deployed chemical weapons against the population constitutes a Rubiconesque red line and has led them to speak of arming the “rebels”. The Russians disagree and perhaps wish to continue supplying arms to the incumbent, as they have done to such great profit in the past.

It is a near carbon copy of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan 30 years ago. The US is backing one side and arming “rebels” in order to counteract the influence of the great enemy. In its previous incarnation, this stand-off led to the Americans arming the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan. One of the principal people trained to fight the “Red Menace” at that point was Osama Bin Laden, who went on to enjoy a certain notoriety in the American media.

Despite these lessons of history, Putin, Obama and their tanks of advanced political thought feel geopolitics is best served by re-enacting the scenario with fresh civilian victims as their fodder.

It is safe to say that whatever token announcements are unveiled after this latest meeting of the world’s self-appointed elite, the lives of most people within their own borders will have changed little. Indeed, it’s safe to say that, in many ways, they may have suffered as a result of the deals that will be struck. I should clarify that statement with a caveat: the lives of the poorest, most marginalised and most disadvantaged in each of their nations will have worsened as a result of what they are trying to do.

The true aim of the talks is succinctly summarised by Bridget Kendall of the BBC. In a typically impartial statement of fact she says, “Syria may dominate discussions on day one but Mr Cameron has made clear his summit priority is broader and includes, first and foremost, much-needed global growth.”

Kendall’s report contains not a hint of sarcasm. She is probably among the best-briefed journalists at the event but in being so close to those who know the truth, she reveals it without judgement.

If considered with any sense, the capitalist mantra of eternal “growth” on a planet run on finite resources is utterly illogical. Yet the BBC reported that Mr Cameron “announced the start of formal negotiations on a trade deal worth hundreds of billions of pounds, aimed at boosting exports and driving growth. Mr Cameron said a successful agreement would have a greater impact than all other world trade deals put together.”

This is hardly a boast given the effect of past trade deals on the general population of the world. Just who this deal will benefit remains to be seen. I can say with certainty that it will benefit the few and those in the upper echelons of private business most of all.

In 1969, the sociologist and mathematician Johan Galtung coined the phrase ‘Structural Violence’, which has since been widely expanded; most notably, in my opinion, by the anthropologist Dr Paul Farmer.

He states, “Structural violence is one way of describing social arrangements that put individuals and populations in harm’s way… The arrangements are structural because they are embedded in the political and economic organisation of our social world; they are violent because they cause injury to people … neither culture nor pure individual will is at fault; rather, historically given (and often economically driven) processes and forces conspire to constrain individual agency. Structural violence is visited upon all those whose social status denies them access to the fruits of scientific and social progress.”

The representatives of their own nations at the G8 meeting might wear their national flags as flagrant iconography but their naked lust for the satiation of the markets and ideology of deregulated capitalism leaves them exposed as the pawns they are in a game from which their own private gain takes precedence over the welfare of those they are (supposedly) elected to serve.

Successive Irish governments have bowed at the altar of the multinational and offered their gifts of tax-haven status. The “Double Irish” has saved certain companies many millions in unpaid, un-owed revenue.

In contrast to those who make decisions which lead to multinational companies being able to state truly and publically that they are tax compliant, despite avoiding millions of Euros of payouts, it is the general public in Ireland who carry the burden of the failure of the global capitalist system. Every day members of the Fine Gael/Labour coalition speak of their desire to return the country to “growth”.

They speak in glowing terms of the day when “the markets” will once again trust and lend to Ireland. Perhaps I’m an idiot but waiting for a loan shark to forget a grudge so I could once again engage his services is not something I would look forward to with any sense of anticipation.

The Group of 8 is a cabal and its structures and those in its member states represent a genuine violence in the lives of populations all over the world.

Grand declarations about ending poverty and injustice in the world ring very hollow when they are made by the guardians of the system which perpetuates them.