International summits: Do we need them?

After the weekend of rioting which accompanied the G8 summit in Genoa, the leaders of the world's richest countries say the format of future summits will be changed in an attempt to limit such disruption.

One Italian man died and hundreds of people were injured in the clashes between protesters and police as the summit participants discussed global economic, political and social issues.

Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien says next year's summit will be held in a remote Rocky Mountain resort instead of his country's capital Ottawa, and will be limited to 350 delegates.

But do we need international summits if they attract such violent protest? Are they essential or are they a waste of time and money? What can be done to avoid future violence?

This debate is now closed. Read a selection of your comments below.

---

Let us bear in mind two points. First, these meetings are all hugely important, and becoming more so, as the countries of the world increasingly become more interdependent. Secondly, the majority of the protestors were not violent anti-capitalists, but peaceful demonstrators appealing for focus on the environment and Third World debt. The solution must be to not allow the violent rioters into the country of the summit. This could be done by setting up a visa system for the period of the summit, and only allowing demonstrators from respectable pressure groups, such as Greenpeace and Jubilee 2000, to travel to the city. This stops the problem before it has begun.
Alan Reiss, UK

The behaviour of the Italian police is now coming in for criticism. Their job keeping our freedoms under the law is a thankless task which the vast majority of the population require them to carry out. Why has their been no coverage of the police injuries which these people inflicted ?

The causes which these people espouse have been assisted in no way by their actions, rather the publicity has been directed to the violence which they took part in. We have formalised means of making our views known to our political leaders which do not involve violence. Those who seek to impose their views on their fellow citizens using violent means should not be surprised when they are met with similar treatment.
Tom Smith, England

Let them be held in suitably remote and restricted locations

Peter Whittle, Taiwan

Summits of any kind are very important in numerous ways, not least in creating a sense of community and common good. Just let them be held in suitably remote and restricted locations, and then we will be spared the violent sideshows and can focus all our attention on the crucial issues under debate.
Peter Whittle, Taiwan

We are not all a 'global village'; we are not all taking the line of 'human rights' - a purely western term; most of all, we are not all represented.
Marc S, Seattle

We simply must have these meetings

AH, Scotland

We simply must have these meetings. These people represent the countries with the most financial clout in the world. They are the biggest hope we have of getting as much help to the needy and disease-ridden people of our world. This is why I cannot understand the actions of the activists in Genoa. It's about time these people grew up and got involved in some adult discussions with the leaders. However, their inability to do this probably tells us as much about them as we need to know. They actually seem more interested in causing trouble than helping those in need. They are the ones who are failing the world's poor, not the G8 leaders.
AH, Scotland

The G7 countries (i.e. not Russia) are responsible for generating the majority of the wealth on this globe, they are also the source of most of the aid to Africa, SE Asia and other deprived areas of the world. As such face to face meetings are required in order to allow private pressure to be brought on any state that may act against the interests of all (not just the G8).

That people have the right to lobby and advise governments of their opinions is a not opposed by any of the states. However, they and I do object to single or in most instances no issue thugs causing violence and mayhem in the cities where they meet. If such actions are valid and many posters believe they are, then right wing activists in the UK, Europe and America have the same rights to bring violence and destruction to the areas where their victims live. Peaceful protest has the opportunity to take place before the meetings it does not need to happen at the meeting. The only thing I do agree is that the meetings should have a set agenda and the leaders briefed in detail beforehand, that way they can cut down the number of advisors that attend.
Jim, UK

Living in Genoa and having been damaged by the senseless violence, don't you think that if the protesters had just held a peaceful sit-in in the streets, as they numbered 300,000, their protest would have had a stronger impact and, therefore, could have been more effective in the end?
Marina, Italy

I don't think we need G8 summits. I think the main beneficiaries of the G8 are the countries taking part. In reality the summit is a way the participating countries can increase their stranglehold on everyone else. In any case George W Bush has shown the world that his attitude is one of "I'll do what I like".
Tel,UK

Why don't world leaders simply have video conferences instead of physically meeting?

Hubert Seiwert, UK/ Germany

Why don't world leaders simply have video conferences instead of physically meeting? This would solve the problem of riots occurring wherever the G8 summit is being held and would also cut down on costs (the G8 summit in Genoa cost $110m)...
Hubert Seiwert, UK/ Germany

Face-to-face meetings of the G8 heads are necessary for many reasons. Unfortunately, the NGOs, corporate leaders and the other delegates appear to have some sort of secret agenda. Perhaps they are discussing genetics, arms, terms of loan (IMF, World Bank) repayments, tariffs, etc; none of which is made public and usually ends up as a "fait accompli".
Brian Merritt, Canada

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The violence at these summits is probably initiated by the multinationals themselves in order to discredit the anti-globalisation protestors. Given that the next summit is to be moved from Ottawa to a hideaway in the Rocky Mountains, then I'd say they were probably successful. The G8 countries can now scheme in private, without having to ever justify their agenda to anyone but themselves.
John McVey, Scotland

No, these international summits are a mockery to the developing world. We do not need them. I thank the protesters who speak on our behalf in the developing world. I wish them good luck and success in future!
Chibamba Douty, Zambian student in Brunei Darussalam

Writing letters to politicians achieves nothing

Dan, UK

As an economist, I am increasingly concerned at the growth in neo-liberal fundamentalism within financial institutions and the governments of rich countries. Over the past few years, international summits have reflected this paradigm. I believe they have undermined traditional economic sectors in the developing world which employed and fed people, creating increased poverty, food insecurity and joblessness. Poor countries are told they must compete on the international market, but they simply don't have the capital to improve food and cash crops. Moreover, they don't get the kind of subsidies received by European farmers, whose produce is sold on the world market at below cost price.

The whole global economy conspires against the poor, so they are unlikely to embrace neo-liberal globalisation. As an activist, I intend to give the three billion people living in poverty a voice at these summits. Since people like me are excluded, we will do everything in our power until we can create a just world. In my experience, writing letters to politicians achieves nothing. Only mass demonstrations at summits have turned the spotlight on the causes of poverty.
Dan, UK

I find it extraordinary that people posting here from the US are mostly in favour of these summits. I know that Americans are generally against big government, so why aren't they against big summits which are, after all, big world government? Why aren't they alongside the protestors who want government for the people and by the people, as the US's founding fathers once called for? Surely Americans if anyone would want greater accountability and less repression of protests at these summits?
Dan Brett, UK

Most International Summits and meetings seem only to end in an agreement that they couldn't agree, and agree to meet again in the future to discuss the issues again! Any commercial organisation would not tolerate such behaviour. After all, if the delegates cannot reach a decision, what is the basis for thinking that the same delegates will reach a decision the next time? If they don't reach a decision, then sack the whole lot and bring on the next team. Drastic action, perhaps, but I believe that we would start to get results.
John Gant, UK

It seems to me these summits are trying to redefine themselves, bringing in Third World leaders and addressing issues which matter to the various public opinions. As a great believer in globalisation as a process which brings nations and people together, as well as increases free movement of goods, services, people and ideas, I would like to see these become something more than a rich nations' club: a coordinated effort to move this globalisation process forward in way in which most feel comfortable.
Michael, Dublin

The G8 is completely discredited by the presence of the Russian President, on what rational basis is he there? Why are they held in the middle of cities? Why is there 400 delegates? Why are they discussing Africa over the heads of the Africans? How anyone can call this good for the planet is joke, it is good for the participants only, and even then a tiny section of them. Blair let himself down in the eyes of many around the world with his initial comments on the death of the protestor. Yes there was a death. One has to ask how a country which treats demonstrators in such a manner deserves to be a participant.
Austin Rock, Ireland

Does anyone really think business gets done at these conferences? The business of governments has always been a back room affair where those who really know the territory make deals. It would be surprising, a bit scary, if the "leaders" at the G8 knew all there was to know about what is being "discussed." Bush, Blair and the others are meant to be leaders, not policy wonks. As such the conferences are primarily a silly occasion for "leaders" to strut their stuff on a larger stage.

As for the "protesters" their causes are as silly as the leaders they are protesting. Imagine anti-"globalisation" protesters and anarchists of other stripes, use the Internet to communicate. The Internet was created and is held together by the very interests these people are protesting. Without it these protesters and anarchists would be using smoke signals. Wouldn't that be a hoot? While I'm at it, when did Europe and England in particular become so pompously self-righteous? It seems to me that the great powers of Europe have become increasing annoying and insignificant the more their people rant about the American desire to look after its own interests first.
Robert, USA

No. Obviously governments need to talk to each other from time to time, but surely there is a better way than having expensive time-wasting summit meetings that seem to grow in number from one year to the next. Besides which, what exactly are these meetings supposed to achieve? A group of politicians get together and express concern about a problem such as global warming, the Aids epidemic or poverty in Africa - and then what? Words alone will not solve problems like these, and it's cruel of the G8 leaders to make us believe that they will.
Hugh, UK

There is something utterly distasteful about these summits telling the poor only so much can be done, while they themselves feast and have a knees up at taxpayers expense. If they really can do so little they should forget the conferences and give the money that would have been spent to the poor. It seems that with the attitude of the rich nations that would do far more good. In fact why not have a conference give everyone the diet of the poorest of the world and not let them out till they do something to make a difference.
Ed Manning, UK

Of course they should be continued - they should also be televised so we can claim our democratic right to know what the bar stewards are saying. We must all be prepared to pay attention to where the money goes which we donate - and that means taxes too. Every penny of aid should be sent as goods, not as cash to end up in the top bananas Swiss bank account.
Lorraine, England

Mindless violence and carnage, CANNOT dictate meetings between the worlds largest countries. Without them dominant issues such as Missile Defence cannot be discussed at a global level. The summits should have greater involvement of pressure-group leaders, as it is their views, which spark protests.
Kenneth McCallum, Kingston, UK

It's supposed to be the age of communication

Jamie Ibbett, Canada

As a person living in Canada I can say that I do not agree with completely isolating a meeting that has issues involving so many people as the agenda. The people want to be heard, as much as I'd disagree with violence, never do we want to see it be impossible to protest in a democratic society. We should have face meetings and not conference calls, but why don't they make it easy for everyone else to log in and view the proceedings, and a forum like this that will take everyone's opinions into account. It's supposed to be the age of communication, lets make it so.
Jamie Ibbett, Canada

Yes, we definitely need face-to-face meetings, and the minutes should be made public. If the European leaders had bothered to sit round a table in 1914 the needless and preventable bloodbath that followed may have been avoided.
Bernard McDonald, Scotland(US resident)

We need international summits on important issues like global warming, world peace, poverty and Third World debt, AIDS etc. However it seems that at this rate, world leaders will no longer meet in person, but take part in for example, videoconferencing and TV deals for a few channels to cover them. The only other way would be to hold a summit in a remote part of the world like Alaska (where they will be able to observe climate change at first hand). We have to realize that globalisation is not always favoured by all sections of society, and many youngsters are quite prepared to take the issue to the streets and fight for a cause they obviously believe passionately in.
Charles King, UK

To do away with international summits on account of a handful of thuggish protestors would be undemocratic in its own right - the leaders of the industrialized world have a mandate to promote the interests of their respective nations on a trans-national level. To eliminate summits would impinge upon their ability to fulfil this responsibility to the citizens of the nations they represent. Protestors cannot be allowed to override national interests on account of their willingness to place themselves in the path of physical harm.
Greg, Oregon, United States

Lets be clear - in the age of internet and telephone video conferencing summits are not necessary. They are simply an excuse for our "leaders" to go on a junket. They eat fine food at top restaurants prepared by world class chefs whilst advocating policies that condemn 19000 children to die every day through starvation.
Richard Swain, UK

All these summits between the national leaders seem to be more about photo opportunities for the said leaders than actually achieving anything. Most agreements are concluded between "lower ranking" representatives. The fact that Mr Blair a man obsessed with media image and presentation thinks these summits are a good idea is enough reason to object to it as it indicates the real look at me I am a big boy mind set of some of the participants. So little is achieved at these G8 summits and the only result seems to be the alienation of most Third World countries. The rioting aside I fail to see a place for the posturing and posing, when the price is the estrangement of so many of the world's countries from the participants.
Dave Pegg, UK

It seems as though all G8 meetings require the following: address unsolvable international problems; ignore the world populace; allow protesters to loot, pillage, destroy, get injured, and die; and bash the Americans for not agreeing to sign the ridiculous Kyoto agreement. In short, the G8 meetings are a waste of time, money, and life.
Ashlon, Beaumont, TX, USA

Nothing replaces meetings face to face where global leaders get to know and trust each other (or not). As to sites - there are plenty of secluded and beautiful places in the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Russia, China (I would love to see how Russian or Chinese police deals with anarchists), etc. Hobart, Juneau, Nankin, Alice Springs, Ulan Bator any time.
Mirek Kondracki, US

These summits are nothing more then photo opportunities and a chance to posture to the voters. Real agreements are made in private where the participants can talk candidly. Anyone who has worked in politics realizes that.
Daniel Rego, USA

I object strongly to holding such international meetings in "out-of-the way" locations, with severe restrictions on the number of attendees. As deplorable as the violence is, it is critical that protests be allowed and that people can demonstrate their concerns.
Cecilia, US

I live in Calgary, just 60 km from the Kananaskis Village where next year's G8 meeting will be held. Kananaskis country is a marvellous mountain park, where I and many others love to hike. The very thought that a bunch of yahoos with Molotov cocktails will be loose in the forest, in the summer, is pretty scary. And all this so the politicos can get together for a picture is ridiculous. Why don't they talk on the phone? Or go to a military base in the Arctic, in winter?
Alfredo Louro, Canada

Yes we do need these summits however these "leaders" have to recognise that this is just part of their chosen profession. Therefore they do not need to spend more than the National Health Budget for Tanzania wining and dining themselves. It's a junkett ladies and gentlemen and should be regarded as a benefit in kind for taxation purposes. So please can we have more jaw jaw, less slurp slurp gobble gobble, and no more rioting.
Phil Davies, UK

Of course international summits are essential. So are the protests. Leadership should stand in account of how their policies affect people. They should not hide in cowardice, then tell the press that the people have no right to protest. What better forum to engage in protest than an international summit? In this way, perhaps they will listen. If not, then I suppose we should e-mail our congressman. Either method seems equally effective.
D.N., USA

We need international summits as long as people perpetrate biased perceptions about countries and cultures, as so many from the UK and Europe do here. Where else can governments have a forum to articulate their interests in an atmosphere of accountability and responsible diplomacy outside of the knee-jerk jingoism that it so often directed against, for example, the US. Of course, many who harbour resentment toward American success and influence don't want the US to have any opportunity to prove the credibility of its actions and policies, which is exactly why their irrational voices need to be countered on the world stage of summit diplomacy.
Mike, USA

They do seem to be largely ineffective junkets paid for by taxpayers. The majority of protest is not violence for its own sake, and I would like to see government leaders doing something positive and definite about the issues which spark the protest. PS I thought Mr Blair's claim to be a democratically elected leader was a bit rich given the percentage of the electorate who actually voted for him, especially as he's spent the weekend with the man who wasn't elected president of the US but got the job anyway!
P,UK

Face-to-face meetings are the best way to develop rapport, resolve differences and reach agreements. Anyone in business knows this, and politics can't be that different.
Richard N, UK

What a waste of money!

Kirstie Ayres, UK

What a waste of money! I work for a large global company and we are cutting costs by holding most of our international meetings via conference calls or video-conference. The technology exists and I fail to see what could not be achieved via these methods that could with a face to face meet - other than the no doubt lavish banquets! When debating extreme world poverty it seems a bit ironic to be doing it in 5-star luxury in the middle of a massively expensive security operation.
Kirstie Ayres, UK

I would just like to know who foots the bill? While we belong to an Europe that restricts what we produce, who we sell it to and for how much, I'd rather not be part of this circus.
Ali Wells, Essex, UK

There are many problems with the current summit arrangements. John Major was critical of them in his biography. However, at least these leaders are talking to each other, not starting wars to resolve their differences. I am very worried that a violent few abusing civil rights may lead to a) the loss of those rights and b) even less public scrutiny of such meetings. I side with the peaceful protestors who are raising important questions and I deplore the fact that a few hundred idiots are hijacking the news headlines.
Nick Cooper, UK

Perhaps we need more, smaller conferences, with greater participation and openness.
JJF, UK

Not only don't we need them, they are a threat to democracy

Leigh, USA

They are board meetings. If they were even remotely connected to a democratic process then the participants would encourage public involvement not attempt to silence or discredit it. Not only don't we need them, they are a threat to democracy.
Leigh, USA (UK orig)

Hold summits where the weather is permanently cold, wet and windy. Protesters seem to be less inclined to riot when it's raining. Look at Bradford, Stoke etc - plenty of aggro when the nights are dry, but it mysteriously calms down when the drizzle sets in.
Georgie Godby, UK

The simple question is do we allow the rising tide of mindless violence and intimidation to hijack whatever cause it likes? Be it world poverty, racism, religious conflict - nothing warrants the displays of thuggery and violence that we have seen in Bradford, Oldham, Genoa....
Rachel Tyrrell, England

Policy which should be debated in full view of the public

Tom Fisher, US

These meetings are non-transparent and quite undemocratic. There are world leaders there, of course, but little mention is made of the heads of large multinational corporation also in attendance. Policy, which often is its way into treaties are made there - policy which should be debated in full view of the public.
Tom Fisher, US

I get increasingly upset by people branding protesters "thugs". Whilst protests can become violent the majority of the people there are non-violent and have a serious point to be make. When police forces then try to "cattle" these people into blocked areas there is bound to be a reaction at them being effectively "arrested" on the streets for voicing a different opinion to those being wined and dined at our expense. What the summit should look at is why so many people from so many walks of life oppose what it is they are doing. These are the people that the so called leaders are supposed to represent - yet they refuse point blank to listen to their views. This is not democracy it is totalitarianism and that in itself should give cause for protest.

The police come out expecting violence and therefore act aggressively towards the protesters from the outset. Whilst I think violence in any form is wrong to brand someone with a very legitimate opinion that varies from those with wealth and power a thug is small minded and unjust. The question we should be asking ourselves is why do these people feel so passionately about saving our futures when we sit so apathetically at home grumbling and opinionating on the news.
Sharon B, UK

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the UN was the International forum where issues are debated and decided. G8 smacks of the richest countries wanting their own little elite group to do business with; the Premiere League of the world, the ultimate aim of which is only to profit their own countries more and allow them to look down on others.
Ed Vista, Bristol, UK

I think at the end of the day, when you look at the people sitting around the table at the G8, you are not looking at the people who run the world. The people who run the world are big business companies, and everybody knows it. The reason why US have trouble agreeing to accords of an "environmentally friendly" nature is because US has three big car companies, and you can't get big without being powerful. The same with Japan, look how many car companies they have. The fact is big countries like the US and Japan don't like being told what to do, and they like to do things on their terms. But if other countries make recommendations to them, they wont like it and will want exemptions.
Stefan P., England

It would be madness for our political leaders not to talk to each other. We have elected our leaders and given them the mandate to make important, collective and representative decisions. No unrepresentative, undemocratic violent anarchist should be able to disenfranchise the silent majority who are outraged by what is going on.
Matt G, UK

Yes, International summits are important otherwise I think that certain countries (i.e. the US) become so insulated that they have no idea about what goes on in the rest of the world. What I find disappointing is that only a few leaders came (it's hardly a summit if you only have a handful of people.
Emma, US

International Conferences are a necessity, as they are the linchpin of international co-operation and diplomacy. However something must be done to make the conferences more accessible to those who have a genuine cause and point of view. Politicians, meeting behind locked doors and being wined and dined at the public expense with their freeloading cronies, must make the conferences more transparent. At the same time anarchists and left-wing people who try to disrupt these events should face the full force of the law.
If conferences are to continue in their present form there is likely to be an escalation of violence. Root and branch reform needs to take place which will allow a proper exchange of views and more transparent decisions, without the threat of violence and death.
Nick, UK

We are a global village and we need each other

Phil W, UK

We are a global village and we need each other. All countries need to keep talking and exchange views to build on success and understand and address problems. They need to understand common ground and respect each others differences. Only then can compromise be found, and give the world hope for a better future.
Those that seek to undermine international summits are thugs, and no better than football hooligans. Governments should stand up to them and all they seek to undermine. However, the media should complete the loop and show us the negative AND positive results from these summits.
Phil W, UK

Ultimately, only completely free trade is fair. I would like to see the end of European agriculture and mass imports from Africa/South America, because it would help alleviate poverty in those countries, and provide me with cheaper, better tasting food.
A win-win situation! Now, why hasn't anybody else thought of this? Such a shame that the EU continues to protect its agricultural markets and the Marxist-inspired Common Agricultural Policy.
Martin Thornhill, UK

Summits do not need to be these vulgar affairs we have witnessed in the recent past

Hugo, UK

International summits can certainly be useful and many great strides in international relations have resulted there from. However, the summits do not need to be these vulgar affairs we have witnessed in the recent past and should be toned down. Summit hosts and attendees alike should also learn to deal with the valuable role played by protestors.
Hugo, UK

I regularly have meetings with people from three or four countries. I do it from a telecasting booth, it 's easier, more convenient, uses relatively old technology and doesn't costs about five hundred quid rather than the millions wasted organising these junkets abroad.
Jonothon, England

The next summit should be held in Nairobi or somewhere in the third world. The people would know that haven't been forgotten and the rioters would not be treated with kid gloves.
Ken, UK

Do we need international summits? Yes, without a doubt. When you have countries like the USA trying to pretend that its actions have no consequences outside its own borders, or that its interests are more important than the combined interests of the rest of the world, then you have to have world summits to illustrate the point that one country is not an island unto itself. Apologies to my fellow Americans if they get offended by my comments, but I thought it was interesting that at the end of the Kyoto talks, European Union Environment Commissioner, Margot Wallstrom, said that the balance of power between the US and EU had changed as a result. Right on, I say.
Tom Reeve, London, UK (American citizen)

I think the G8 summits are a complete waste of money - the issues to be discussed could be dealt with by video conferencing, if they seriously wish to address issues such as 3rd world debt and global warming, which seems questionable. At present, they are only a magnet for the worst type of violent "protest" which obscures the voice of genuine, peaceful protest.
Fiona, UK