How should Europe be represented at international bodies?

Comments on Gideon Rachman “Europe’s plot to take over the world”, 6/10/2009, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Europes-plot-to-take-over-the-world-pd20091006-WK2CN?OpenDocument&src=sph

While the current structure and membership of the G20 can be regarded as a transitional arrangement to bridge the G8 and a new permanent G20, it is a bit unfair to have so many European representatives from both its individual member countries and from its unity bodies.

Europe should be represented either as a group or as individual countries, but not by both. It is up to them to decide how they would like to be represented.

While others are polite enough not to raise this issue openly and directly with the Europeans, they should have self awareness and be wise enough not to be unreasonable in their representation at the G20.

They should act without the urge of others. The earlier they do that, the better for both them and the rest.

An idea - good or bad?

Comments on Arvind Subramanian “The G-20: An Idea from India”, 11/09/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/09/11/the-g-20-an-idea-from-india/
Why should the World Bank not be a bank but an institution for generating ideas and technologies?
Surely that would push back the agenda for improvement in developing countries many years, wouldn't?
The author probably assumes the following:
that there are not enough ideas,
that there are not enough technologies for developing countries,
that developing countries are better in assimilating ideas,
that developing countries are better at adopting "new technologies",
that the WB is better at generating ideas,
that the WB is better at developing technologies.
It is highly doubtful any of the above would hold any water, or has any reasonable rationale.
It does not seem to be a good idea at all.

A need for a world investment organisation

Comments on Maaike Okano-Heijmans and Frans-Paul van der Putten “Europe needs to screen Chinese investment”, 18 /08/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/08/18/europe-needs-to-screen-chinese-investment/

It seems there is a fairly urgent need to have an international or world organisation to facilitate and oversee international capital flows or cross-border or foreign investment, given the magnitude and importance of capital movement internationally at present and into the future, and the likely increasing disputes or impediment or protections that affect the efficient allocation of global financial and physical capital resources.

There should be a set of agreed principles that govern international capital flows. The principles should be non-discriminatory in nature. National security may be a legitimate reason for some government intervention, but the rules governing it needs to be spelt out clearly and that should not be used as an excuse for discrimination at will by governments or politicians either economically, politically or racially.

There should be an international agreement on international investment and capital flows. One additional advantage of having an international overseeing organisation is to minimise the potential damages done by big speculative players in the international capital market.

Should different ownership be treated differently, given that all firms are under the regulation of a sovereign country? But it is an interesting and legitimate question and needs to be addressed openly and fairly.

One option for such an international organisation is to broaden the responsibility of and empower the WTO, so it would also serve as a forum for nations to settle disputes in international capital flows. Another option is to restructure the IMF and give it a new mandate on overseeing international capital flows.