G-8 very outdated

This week's G-8 meeting of seven big industrialized democracies plus authoritarian Russia reminded many people of just how dated the organization is. After all, the growing commercial powerhouses of China and India are not members, and nor is Saudi Arabia, whose vast oil wealth makes it (unfortunately) a major player in the world economy. Indeed, the current world financial mess is largely owing to a surge in the price of that grotesquely overused toxic substance.The G-8's mission is essentially to discuss and set broad policies (or understandings) on world economics. The new powers need to be at the table. Sadly, not all such powers are going to be democracies that we approve of. But such is the world. If anything, dictatorships seem to be on a roll lately.The U.S.-dominated World Bank (especially) and the International Monetary Fund (less so) continue to do good work in alleviating financial crises and poverty, but a relative decline in U.S. economic power argues that new financial-coordination structures will soon be needed to supplement or even replace them.As The Economist magazine noted this week, other world bodies also need an update, especially including the U.N. Security Council, which time and time again has shown its impotence to stop rogue regimes from doing what they want to do. Consider that in the face of fatuous expressions of concern by other nations, Iran and North Korea are merrily pursuing their nuclear weapons ambitions, however candied over by rhetorical distractions.Sen. John McCain has suggested the creation of a new League of Democracies to pressure for, well, democracy and human rights and to more quickly and powerfully to stop aggression through application of international law (an oxymoron?) and military force when needed. This could supplement and perhaps ultimately replace NATO, that Cold War creature that, with the U.S., is about the only organization that sometimes firmly acts to counter aggression and severe violations of human rights.There are, it is true, U.N. peacekeeping projects, but they are very difficult to get off the ground. That's in part because of the irresponsibility and cynicism of so many members of the Security Council, many of which are sanguinary dictatorships unhappy with the very idea of undermining dictatorships; it can set a lethal example for them. And most democracies, besides the U.S. and Britain, would just as soon make money off both sides, or the aggressor, in a dispute.Further, once peacekeeping programs are started, they are hard to keep adequately financed. Most nations, including the United States, just don't want to pay for them because their citizens don't care. That includes such bloodbaths as Rwanda. So far away . . .Let us hope that the next American president leads the way toward a rethinking of the membership and duties of international organizations. The current arrangements mostly go back to the mid- and late 1940s and are products of World War II and the start of the Cold War. That's a very long time ago indeed!(Distributed by Scripps Howard News Service, www.scrippsnews.com.)