Que faut-il penser du G-20 ? Les analyses divergent.
Le Washington Post est assez épaté par le résultat:
- World leaders agree to a far reaching plan
Le New York Times nettement moins:
Les World leaders ont repoussé les questions épineuses à plus tard.
- “They put off thornier decisions about how to overhaul financial regulations until next year, providing a serious early challenge for the Obama administration”.
Symboliquement, il s’est quand même passé quelque chose. Un tournant dans la gouvernance mondiale.
- A major shift
C’est la première fois que le G-20 se réunit au niveau des chefs d’Etat.
Le monde n’est plus sous la domination transatlantique. Lire ici
Les Européens vont avoir du mal à garder leurs 8 sièges au FMI.
Deux experts de la Brookings Institution:
- “The center of gravity of the world economy has shifted, it is equally important that with the end of the Cold War and the rise of new problems of global climate change, the U.S. international agenda is no longer identical to that of Western Europe” (Wing Thye Woo)
- “The G-20 now replaces the G-8 as the global steering committee, and the G-8 becomes a Caucus, a transatlantic caucus, a regional grouping that prepares for that. Now, the problem in the front is exactly the same — is that 49.5 percent of the voting shares in the Fund, as all you know, are represented by the United States and Europe. Only 5.6 percentage of the voting structure of the IMF is in the hands of China and India. This is ridiculous. It just doesn’t make sense in a world in which Asia’s wanting to be a partner in this enterprise.” (Colin Bradford)