On 17th March 2005 the UK hosted the G8 ministerial on the environment. The goal of the ministerial was to reach agreement on a number of matters of great interest to radical movements and groups, including a proposal to impose greater regulation on logging activities in the developing world. This was widely reported as a success for multilateralism and for the UK's leadership in the ministerial. On the other hand the meeting taking place in Derby was also noteworthy for the heavy police presence. It was reported that activists were proposing to use the occasion as a rehearsal for the mobilisation being planned for the full meeting of the G8 in June. In response the local chief constable called for a mobilisation of 2000 police officers (on The Guardian's figures) and the banning of public meetings and demonstrations within a 5 mile radius of the conference centre at Breadsall Priory. On the day itself approximately 150 activists (according to Indymedia) turned up in Derby city centre to take part in some `street theatre' and to hear speeches by Friends of the Earth.

In view of the fact that the ministerial produced decisions that were likely to be welcomed by the latter, one commentator posted a comment to Indymedia's site asking why activists should protest the G8 at all. Isn't this a futile act that demonstrates little understanding or regard for the modalities of global politics? Surely a G8 meeting to discuss vital environmental issues should be a matter for celebration not protest?

What is implied in the view above is that the most responsible or intelligent view would be to back the G8 and multilateral negotiations against the unilateralism of the US and the neoliberal `free market', which allows corporations unhindered access to natural resources as `commodities'. This is an oft heard position on what might be termed the global social democratic left. It is a `realistic' position that insists that there are two paths forward from where we are here. The first is a rampant neoliberal unilateralism, the other a multilateral politics informed by the need for consensus and discussion concerning the best way forward for the planet. Activists should side with the latter, representing as it does the best hope for keeping rein on the US and TNCs. Sure activists should lobby the G8 in June - but lobbying is not opposing. Indeed lobbying is effectively endorsing the position of the G8. Citizens lobby parliament or congress, not because they are against parliament, but because they think parliament is effective and legitimate. They just want their voice heard. On the eve of the G8 meet in July - which will no doubt be one of the largest mobilisations to be seen in the UK - it is perhaps worth rehearsing why such protests are justified.

The position that activists should back the G8 and its `ministerials' rests on a number of misperceptions which it will be important to dispel in order for us to see what is actually at stake.

* 1. it assumes that multilateralism of the kind represented by the G8 is more likely to lead to reasonable, just or equitable outcomes than is US based unilateralism. The accord on logging would be an example of this, the assumption being that by itself the US would not restrain TNCs from these kinds of activities. The difficulty here is in our assuming that because the G8 is capable of recommending laudable outcomes that this is what it is for. History suggests otherwise. The role of the G8 and its predecessors is on the contrary to establish and maintain a community of interest by which to manage and negotiate global affairs from the point of view of the eight wealthiest countries in the world. Bearing this in mind it is of course still possible for the G8 to agree to benign policies. But this alone does not make the G8 benign. Nor should it imply that the G8 is designed to act in the interests of the global majority. As the G8's history shows it seeks to paper over the worst excesses of global capitalism by piecemeal reform and gestures of the kind represented by the logging accord. Such agreements are useful for PR, not for resolving the problems confronting the global majority or giving them a voice. Indeed such meets give the impression that capitalist globalisation can be `compassionate' and reasonable, i.e. a globalisation of the kind that Clinton and Blair called for at the end of the 1990s. However, measures such as the logging accord have been few and far between over the past three decades. Should we temper our criticism of an unelected unrepresentative self-interested body because it is capable of delivering a handful of accords that concern the effect of global capitalism whilst doing nothing to address the causes of them?

* 2. it assumes that because multilateralism is more `inclusive' than unilateralism it deserves our support on that basis alone. This equates to the view that we should support a body that represents the interests of the wealthy few as opposed to one that represents only the interests of the wealthiest one. As should be apparent, the `choice' is a narrow one to say the least. What is left out is much more important than what is left in, namely the views, positions and needs of the global majority who are completely unrepresented at the G8 and its attendant ministerials. Even major economic powers such as India and Brazil have no voice at all on the body and consequently no power to influence or engage in issues of pressing interest to them. What it means in practice is that even a logging accord is written with the interests of the global wealthy at heart. Added to this is that such accords are wholly unenforceable, have no place in international law and are not backed by any kind of meaningful sanctions against member states. In short such accords are more properly characterised as PR for the rich rather than laws or norms guiding the behaviour of states.

* 3. it assumes that states are the major actors in world politics such that limiting the activities of states is the key to limiting or modifying globalisation. Such a position ignores the most noticeable aspect of globalisation over the past thirty years. This is the steady detachment of corporations from nation states and their laws. An accord on logging has jurisdiction over those corporations whose activities are governed by the laws of one of the member states. Yet there are literally thousands of corporations who are not so governed because they have moved `off shore' to the Caymans, the Bahamas, Gibraltar, etc etc - none of whom are of course members of the G8. Again, we are in the midst of PR, not serious attempts to modify or confront the worst aspects of globalisation, one of which is the freedom of corporations to move around the globe unhampered by consideration of the needs of those they exploit.

* 4. the stance assumes that activists should be guided by what is `realistically' possible to achieve as opposed to what is right, just or democratic. We should lobby existing powers, not create new ones. This is tantamount to arguing that we should support the G8 and the practices of which it is a part. We should be content that there is some discussion or deliberation, as opposed to none. We should be happy that eight states decide how best to rule the world, rather than one. We are in the midst here of what, in different circumstances, is called `appeasement'. This is to say we should see activism as operating according to the world as it is as opposed to how the world could, should or might otherwise be. Appeasement has little moral or ethical attractiveness at any level, let alone in questions that concern the fate of the planet. It did little for the well-being of Europe in the 1930s. It would do little for the well-being of the global majority in the twenty-first century. The great success of the anti-capitalist movement is in reminding us that `other worlds' are not merely desirable, but necessary if environmental degradation, voicelessness, poverty and exclusion are to be confronted. Siding with the G8 may be the most `realistic' option available - but it is precisely this `realism' that is the object of the anti-capitalist critique.

In contrast to this stance, we should see the G8 for what it really is: an unelected, unrepresentative body that stands for the interests of the world's very wealthiest states. The accords it produces are propaganda papering over the reality of global pillage, environmental catastrophe, active immiseration of the many for the benefit of the few. The G8 is not a mechanism of deliberation. It is a talking shop whose amiable `multilateralism' papers over the stranglehold of corporations on the lives of the world's neediest. We should recognise that no amount of compromise, appeasement or lobbying on our part will change the purpose or character of the G8. The rational response to the G8 is the same as the rational response to any system of unelected despotism, namely to seek its displacement by properly democratic practices, procedures and institutions.

Author Simon Tormey, author of ‘Anti-Capitalism: A Beginner’s Guide’