Will the U.S. be put in timeout at the G-20 summit?

by Christina Lovato, University of New Mexico-Talk Radio News Service


“Now the G-20 is not an easier group to get into a consensus, it’s very much harder,” said Jeremy Rabkin, a Professor of law at George Mason University School of Law.

Today at a discussion on the upcoming G-20 meeting in London, panelists expressed their concerns about the meeting, the topics that should be addressed, and the likely results from the meeting.

J.D. Foster, a Senior Fellow in the economics of fiscal policy at the Thomas Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies of the Heritage Foundation, said there are three issues at stake in the summit, the first being stimulus spending. “Should it be an international priority? Second, international institutions.... Should entirely new institutions of global governance be created? And third, underlying the both of the first two questions is the question of sovereignty. Should nations retain the basic right to regulate their own markets even if the result is that their systems of regulation differ?" Foster also said that at the summits they take on the task of lecturing one another usually on things that they themselves are not doing very well. "In this case we hope very much that the American president, President Obama, heeds some of the lectures of his European counterparts. It is a shameful situation to find ourselves in where we hope the European leaders are effective in lecturing the American president on the dangers of debt finance but that’s where we are.” Foster went on to say that people all over the world have the right to be angry with the U.S. “The Czechs, the French, the Germans, everybody else in the world is right to be angry at the United States and other governments engaged in this sort of enormous debt finance stimulus which won’t work, but they should be more than concerned; they should be furious. They should be furious because this is going to drive up interest rates at some point.... It will be affecting global financial markets,” concluded Foster.

Desmond Lachman, a Resident Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy, said “Europe to me looks like it’s basically in denial. Japan has run out of policy instruments.... interest rates are at zero. China is still counting on exports, really not being flexible on its exchange rate or trying to modify its economy..... You know that I think they diagnosed the problem correctly,” he said. Lachman went on to say, “I think what they have done is executed rather poorly.” Lachman expressed that the the fiscal stimulus package was poorly designed and that the Geithner plan is not attacking the problem in the banking system, saying that the problem is not one of liquidity but of solvency.

Rabkin stated that he thinks it is very unlikely that we are going to see enhanced global governance as the outcome of G-20 deliberations and said that the G-20 group is science fiction. “The majority of these countries are poor and somewhat chaotic. The idea that you’re going to propose a elaborate system of global controls, and ‘China’ will say yeah good idea we really want people to come into our country and monitor how we do our regulation. I think it’s fantastical,” he concluded.

Americans should be “outraged” with Bush Administration

At the House Judiciary Committee hearing on "Executive Power and Its Constitutional Limitations," Bruce Fein, Deputy Attorney General under President Reagan, said that many high crimes and misdemeanors were committed under the Bush Administration. He said that the executive branch “destroyed the Constitution” and the order of checks and balances that it supported. Fein explained that a claim of fighting terrorism can be used to arrest anyone without question and flout any restriction on gathering foreign intelligence. This means that the president can kidnap or detain anyone he thinks necessary, and open mail and burglarize homes if he thinks it necessary — a very “frightening power” according to Fein. Fein also said that “short of impeachment,” there is nothing Congress can do to punish the Bush Administration.

Vincent Bugliosi, the author of “Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder,” said he had evidence “beyond a reasonable doubt” that President Bush entered into war without good reason and is therefore guilty of murder. Bugliosi said that in 2002, the CIA told its officials that Saddam Hussein did not present imminent threats to the U.S. and published these findings in a white paper. However, Bugliosi explained that when the white paper was given to Congress, the part saying Hussein was not a threat was deleted. Because of this deletion, Bugliosi said that the Bush Administration got away with thousands upon thousands of murders in Iraq, exclaiming that Americans should be “outraged,” a statement which was greeted with applause from the public in attendance.

Jeremy Rabkin from the U.S. Institute of Peace tried to “add perspective” to the situation. He said that the “conspiracy charges” against the Bush Administration are “wildly improbable,” and tried to remind Congress that this situation is not unique to the Bush Administration. Rabkin said that the actions of the Bush Administration are much more understandable under the context of wartime and was “astonished” by the “tone in the room.” He also said that America’s enemies are not Democrats or Republicans but rather the “terrorists who want to kill us.”

Frederick Schwartz, Senior Counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, said that the Bush Administration abandoned the rule of law and has gotten away from the checks-and-balances structure of government. Schwartz said that because of the Bush Administration’s actions, America is “less free and less safe.” He said that the “full story” needs to be told, and an independent, bipartisan committee needs to look at what’s been done wrong and what’s been done right. Schwartz did not recommend impeachment because he said that it would make a mature, responsible, and detailed investigation impossible. He said that the U.S. must not adopt “the tactics of their enemies,” but rather strive for a “future that will be worthy of the best of our past.”