It is perhaps appropriate that it was Silvio Berlusconi who delivered the words on behalf of the G8. Paddy Agnew's piece in The Irish Times (July 23rd) quotes him as giving a "defiant defence of the free market globalisation policies promoted by the G8". It is "the only system compatible with a democratic development of society".
This statement has the same amoral character as Mr Berlusconi's record. His extradition was sought by a Spanish judge for alleged fraud in Spain by one of his companies. Mr Berlusconi, however, had himself nominated to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and thus enjoyed immunity from extradition or prosecution.
The statement is provocatively absolutist and authoritarian. It advocates a single model of the world economy based on the unregulated workings of neo-liberal economic policies. Such policies have, of course, widened the gap between rich and poor.
Tony Blair's invitation to a dialogue rings hollow if, as it appears, it is an invitation to a limited discourse within a single model. It purports to explain the world, to describe a law which is inevitable. The reality is that little in the Genoa conclusions will help those who need justice or even fair trade.
In Uganda five years ago coffee was sold at $1.23 a kilo. When I was in Uganda two weeks ago it was 86 cents a kilo. Uganda cannot afford to send delegates to the World Trade Organisation talks in Geneva when they happen. If they are given assistance with costs they are expected to agree with what is put in front of them. If they disagree they are not necessarily assisted to return. As a result of the last talks, Africa lost $3 billion. Europe gained $80 billion, China $40 billion, Japan $25 billion and the US $18 billion.
Has anything happened in Genoa to stop a repeat or worsening of this trade imbalance? Nothing. Africa is reduced to a choice of being ignored or being exploited.
What is extraordinary, however, is the degree to which criticism is being silenced on economic matters. Globalisation is being sold as an undefined certainty, a process that does not need to be explained, but must be imposed universally and unaccountably. No burden of governance must impede its progress.
The first point of the communique is more of the same and thus likely to deepen inequality. Under this model we get, in good times, growth, stability and widening gaps between rich and poor. In bad times, we get slow growth, instability with new opportunities for speculation and the increased prospect of destitution for the poorest of the poor.
In such circumstances it is a moral and humanitarian act to protest. Surely we should oppose the censorship that accompanies a single model of infinite greed which is imposed as the only acceptable version of the world's political economy.
The second stated aim of the G8 was to foster "open, democratic and accountable systems of governance". How can this be made to fit with the total unaccountability of multinationals, more and more of whose trading takes place within a chain of linked corporate ownership? Does it not pose a challenge to democratic governance that the top 100 multinationals account for one-third of foreign direct investment - $104 trillion - most of it in acquisitions and takeovers? Does it not matter that between $1.3 billion and $1.6 billion is speculated every day, that every five days this equals a year's world trade?
The third point of the communique, to combat transnational organised crime, will have all our support, but we may not expect any action on international corporate crime - financial, ecological, social or economic.
Debt relief was not substantially increased at Genoa. Indeed previous commitments made to the most heavily indebted countries have yet to be honoured. A new conditionality is written in, in fact. "Other measures" have to be adopted as "steps to growth".
The G8's statement makes an appeal for others to turn away from violence. Although one can unequivocally accept the principle, what of the economic violence of corporations or of the members of the G8 themselves on arms production, sale and distribution?
In 1999 global military spending was $864 billion. The number of military and civilian deaths from war from 1945 to 1993 was 23 million people. In 1995, $15 billion was the estimated global expenditure for the prevention and control of AIDS, TB and malaria. Since 1945, 150 million deaths are attributable to these. The $1.3 billion pledged for AIDS in Genoa is a fraction of the figure sought by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan.
The last point of the communique is, perhaps, the most cynical - the pledge to work for the reduction of greenhouse gases. Berlusconi after all has told the press that George Bush suffered no loss of credibility because of his attitude to the Kyoto Accord.
The hegemony of the G8 will be facilitated by moral and political apathy, and the silence of those who might have criticised. It might be defeated by international solidarity in support of a society where rather than being prisoners of the economy, citizens might be at peace and willing to use resources creatively in a spirit of generous solidarity and ecological responsibility.
Michael D Higgins is Labour Party TDfor Galway West