This current recession calls for new and innovative responses. Not to worry.  The G8, plus a few others, put their heads together to tackle economic problems around the world. 

Soon, the G8 will most likely begin to incorporate other nations, creating a new G14 or G24.  Nations like China, India, Brazil, South Africa and Mexico are increasingly important to any global decision-making process.  Global climate and large trade deals cannot be made without the G5 and other rising nations.  The economies of the G8 are shrinking, but the up-and-coming nations are just that: up and coming. 

The economic clout of the G8 has decreased, and they needed a way to emphasise their power in a very visible setting.  The chosen ‘setting’ was food security. 

In this case, Food Security Aid serves two obvious purposes.  First, aid money is an alternative to raising tariffs.  Tariff policies tested in the 1930s are inappropriate in today’s global market.  Instead, Food Security Aid encourages the production of more goods: bigger supply, smaller cost. 

The aid money serves a second purpose: sustainable agricultural development.  President of the International Fund for Agricultural Development Kanaya Nwanze told the BBC that “food security is not just food aid.  It is the ability of people to produce food locally and for them to be able to have access to local markets.”  The development of Lesser Developed Countries (LDCs) provides economic stability and worldwide growth.  

But the decision to donate to food security can be seen another way. Giving money shows the supposed strength of the G8 as one body, perhaps for the last time.  In addition, behind everything said about the need for a stronger global economy is the added bonus of publicity. 

The world’s media speculated on figures to be given to food security to be about $15 billion.  A few days later, news sources gallantly reported the good intentions of our leaders and the increased amounts of aid money to about $20 billion. 

But can we really say that any aid money has been given at all?  

In 2005 at the Gleneagles summit, nations made an agreement and pledged to double the amount of aid going to Sub-Saharan Africa and bring the new total to $25 billion.  This commitment has not yet been met.  Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi is still asking “the G8 to live up to their commitments.”  Prime Minister Berlusconi may blame the lagging economy, but the real question is whether these governments mean what they say and say what they mean.  

The leaders made a big fuss about the aid money.  President Sarkozy emphasized that “things are progressing” and President Obama stated that “there is no reason that Africa cannot be self-sufficient when it comes to food”.  A lot of talk with no money behind it. 

I would not want to accuse any nation of giving money exclusively for the sake of appearances.  Confidence in the market is an important step in recovery.  However, exorbitant amounts of pomp and circumstance were given to the generosity of the large nations.  Perhaps the aid money was an exercise in muscle-flexing, after all.  

Showing off the ‘super powers’ of the G8 nations is great for public opinion.  But rhetoric does not help the hungry.