G-zero: empty summit
Following the results of the Argentine summit G20, a joint declaration was adopted, which has already been characterized as “minimally compromise”. By and large, this is another paper that has not given any specifics regarding joint actions to overcome global problems. A lot of questions are raised and the effectiveness of the summit itself, on which, in fact, not a single serious problem was solved. An empty summit, like many that preceded it.
В declaration 31 clause, but they are all just declarative and more vague.
Thus, the leaders of the G-20 agreed to “seek sustainable growth of the global economy” and to reform the WTO (the World Trade Organization). Many representatives at the summit noted that reform was needed, but no specific proposals were made. There were no ideas on how to achieve compliance with the WTO statute by all countries included in the organization, if individual countries are not a priori ready to follow general rules, introducing sanctions and setting protective barriers.
The declaration has a clause on the coordination of actions against terrorism, including on the fight against the spread of ideologues of radicalism on the Internet. At the same time, Western countries have not yet introduced (and, apparently, are not going to impose) restrictions on the movement of funds aimed at financial support of terrorist groups in various parts of the world. It turns out that there is an application for the joint fight against terrorism, but they prefer to fight in their own way, and often - “fight” exclusively from the stands. Some actually make efforts to eliminate terrorist threats, others cultivate terrorists with the goal of their hands to achieve the realization of their own plans.
Also in the declaration of the G-20 summit, which ended in Buenos Aires, states that measures must be taken to eliminate the causes of forced migration. Here it is worth paying attention to the fact that the leaders of those states that unceremoniously interfere in the internal affairs of other countries, supporting the “color” revolutions and civil wars, which become the main reasons for the emergence of huge migration flows, put their signatures to this document hypocritically.
Additional hypocrisy - the signing of the declaration by the leaders of the countries of the NATO military bloc. Those countries that, without UN Security Council sanctions, repeatedly organized a military invasion around the world, which led to the emergence of millions of refugees. Now they announce the need to "eliminate the causes of migration crises." At whose expense are going to do it?
The declaration has absorbed climate themes as well. The signing took place against the background of the fact that the United States had previously withdrawn from the climate agreement, saying that if we are talking about the need to support domestic production and business development, then we can forget about global climate change. US President Donald Trump a few days ago drew attention to the cold in America, saying: “And where is global warming?” Apparently, the American president believes that global warming should be understood as “constant heat” even where classic winter reigns. The concept of “growth chart of average temperatures over several years” is definitely not for Trump.
When signing the document, it was stated that "the declaration must be implemented by all countries." At the same time, no statement was made about when this was the last time.
Both the final declaration and the entire G20 summit once again demonstrate a global crisis in relations. One gets the impression that these summits are held exclusively for media purposes and have the character of a performance in a theater where the troupe is split and unable to agree on the distribution of roles. Someone does work with the breather, not having their own text.
In the end, according to the classics: we smile and wave, but we remain with our own ... And if it’s short about the results, then G-zero.
В declaration 31 clause, but they are all just declarative and more vague.
Thus, the leaders of the G-20 agreed to “seek sustainable growth of the global economy” and to reform the WTO (the World Trade Organization). Many representatives at the summit noted that reform was needed, but no specific proposals were made. There were no ideas on how to achieve compliance with the WTO statute by all countries included in the organization, if individual countries are not a priori ready to follow general rules, introducing sanctions and setting protective barriers.
The declaration has a clause on the coordination of actions against terrorism, including on the fight against the spread of ideologues of radicalism on the Internet. At the same time, Western countries have not yet introduced (and, apparently, are not going to impose) restrictions on the movement of funds aimed at financial support of terrorist groups in various parts of the world. It turns out that there is an application for the joint fight against terrorism, but they prefer to fight in their own way, and often - “fight” exclusively from the stands. Some actually make efforts to eliminate terrorist threats, others cultivate terrorists with the goal of their hands to achieve the realization of their own plans.
Also in the declaration of the G-20 summit, which ended in Buenos Aires, states that measures must be taken to eliminate the causes of forced migration. Here it is worth paying attention to the fact that the leaders of those states that unceremoniously interfere in the internal affairs of other countries, supporting the “color” revolutions and civil wars, which become the main reasons for the emergence of huge migration flows, put their signatures to this document hypocritically.
Additional hypocrisy - the signing of the declaration by the leaders of the countries of the NATO military bloc. Those countries that, without UN Security Council sanctions, repeatedly organized a military invasion around the world, which led to the emergence of millions of refugees. Now they announce the need to "eliminate the causes of migration crises." At whose expense are going to do it?
The declaration has absorbed climate themes as well. The signing took place against the background of the fact that the United States had previously withdrawn from the climate agreement, saying that if we are talking about the need to support domestic production and business development, then we can forget about global climate change. US President Donald Trump a few days ago drew attention to the cold in America, saying: “And where is global warming?” Apparently, the American president believes that global warming should be understood as “constant heat” even where classic winter reigns. The concept of “growth chart of average temperatures over several years” is definitely not for Trump.
When signing the document, it was stated that "the declaration must be implemented by all countries." At the same time, no statement was made about when this was the last time.
Both the final declaration and the entire G20 summit once again demonstrate a global crisis in relations. One gets the impression that these summits are held exclusively for media purposes and have the character of a performance in a theater where the troupe is split and unable to agree on the distribution of roles. Someone does work with the breather, not having their own text.
In the end, according to the classics: we smile and wave, but we remain with our own ... And if it’s short about the results, then G-zero.
Information