question_text: what is the role of india in g20

question_tokens: what is the role of india in g20

text: History[edit]

text: Founding[edit]

text: The G20 is the latest in a series of post–World War II initiatives aimed at international coordination of economic policy, which include institutions such as the "Bretton Woods twins", the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, and what is now the World Trade Organization.[9]

text: The G20 was foreshadowed at the Cologne Summit of the G7 in June 1999, and formally established at the G7 Finance Ministers' meeting on 26 September 1999 with an inaugural meeting on 15–16 December 1999 in Berlin. Canadian finance minister Paul Martin was chosen as the first chairman and German finance minister Hans Eichel hosted the inaugural meeting.[10]

text: A 2004 report by Colin I. Bradford and Johannes F. Linn of the Brookings Institution asserted the group was founded primarily at the initiative of Eichel, the concurrent chair of the G7.[11] However, Bradford later described then-Finance Minister of Canada (and future Prime Minister of Canada) Paul Martin as "the crucial architect of the formation of the G-20 at finance minister level," and as the one who later "proposed that the G-20 countries move to leaders level summits."[12] Canadian academic and journalistic sources have also identified the G20 a project initiated by Martin and then-US Treasury Secretary Larry Summers,[13][14][15][16] as has Dawn Nakagawa of the Berggruen Institute.[17] All acknowledge, however, that Germany and the United States played a key role in bringing their vision into reality.

text: Martin and Summers conceived of the G20 in response to the series of massive debt crises that had spread across emerging markets in the late 1990s, beginning in Mexico and followed by the 1997 Asian financial crisis, an economic collapse in Russia, and eventually impacting the United States, most prominently in the form of the collapse of the prominent hedge fund Long-Term Capital Management in the autumn of 1998.[13][14][15] It illustrated to them that in a rapidly globalizing world, the G7, G8, and the Bretton Woods system would be unable to provide financial stability, and they conceived of a new, broader permanent group of major world economies that would give a voice and new responsibilities in providing it.[13][15]

text: The G20 membership was decided by Eichel's deputy Caio Koch-Weser and Summers' deputy Timothy Geithner. According to the political economist Robert Wade:

text: Geithner and Koch-Weser went down the list of countries saying, Canada in, Portugal out, South Africa in, Nigeria and Egypt out, and so on; they sent their list to the other G7 finance ministries; and the invitations to the first meeting went out.[18]

text: Early topics[edit]

text: The G20's primary focus has been governance of the global economy. Summit themes have varied from year to year. The theme of the 2006 G20 ministerial meeting was "Building and Sustaining Prosperity". The issues discussed included domestic reforms to achieve "sustained growth", global energy and resource commodity markets, reform of the World Bank and IMF, and the impact of demographic changes due to an aging world population.

text: In 2007, South Africa hosted the secretariat with Trevor A. Manuel, South African Minister of Finance as chairperson of the G20.

text: In 2008, Guido Mantega, Brazil's Minister of Finance, was the G20 chairperson and proposed dialogue on competition in financial markets, clean energy, economic development and fiscal elements of growth and development.

text: On 11 October 2008 after a meeting of G7 finance ministers, US President George W. Bush stated that the next meeting of the G20 would be important in finding solutions to the burgeoning economic crisis of 2008.

text: Summits[edit]

text: The G20 Summit of the G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors, who prepare the leaders' summit and implement their decisions, was created as a response both to the financial crisis of 2007–2010 and to a growing recognition that key emerging countries were not adequately included in the core of global economic discussion and governance. Additionally, the G20 Summits of heads of state or government were held.

text: After the 2008 debut summit in Washington, DC, G20 leaders met twice a year: in London and Pittsburgh in 2009, and in Toronto and Seoul in 2010.[19]

text: Since 2011, when France chaired and hosted the G20, the summits have been held only once a year.[20] The 2016 summit was held in China,[21] and 2017 summit was held in Hamburg, Germany. G20 Summit Information wave statistics

text: A number of other ministerial-level G20 meetings have been held since 2010. Agriculture ministerial meetings were conducted in 2011 and 2012; meetings of foreign ministers were held in 2012 and 2013; trade ministers met in 2012 and 2014, and employment ministerial meetings have taken place annually since 2010.[22]

text: In March 2014, the Australian foreign minister Julie Bishop, as host of the 2014 G20 summit in Brisbane, proposed to ban Russia from the summit over its role in the 2014 Crimean crisis.[23] The BRICS foreign ministers subsequently reminded Bishop that "the custodianship of the G20 belongs to all Member States equally and no one Member State can unilaterally determine its nature and character."[24]

text: In July 2017, Germany hosted the 2017 Summit. The 2018 Summit will be in Argentina,[25] 2019 in Japan,[26] and 2020 in Saudi Arabia.[27]

text: List of summits[edit]

text: Chair rotation[edit]

text: To decide which member nation gets to chair the G20 leaders' meeting for a given year, all 19 sovereign nations are assigned to one of five different groupings. Each group holds a maximum of four nations. This system has been in place since 2010, when South Korea, which is in Group 5, held the G20 chair. The table below lists the nations' groupings:[28]

text:
Group 1
Group 2
Group 3
Group 4
Group 5

 Australia
 Canada
 Saudi Arabia
 United States

 India
 Russia
 South Africa
 Turkey

 Argentina
 Brazil
 Mexico

 France
 Germany
 Italy
 United Kingdom

 China
 Indonesia
 Japan
 South Korea

text: Organisation[edit]

text: The G20 operates without a permanent secretariat or staff. The group's chair rotates annually among the members and is selected from a different regional grouping of countries. The chair is part of a revolving three-member management group of past, present and future chairs, referred to as the "Troika". The incumbent chair establishes a temporary secretariat for the duration of its term, which coordinates the group's work and organizes its meetings. The role of the Troika is to ensure continuity in the G20's work and management across host years. The current chair of the G20 is Germany, which is hosting the 2017 Summit in Hamburg.

text: Proposed permanent secretariat[edit]

text: In 2010, President of France Nicolas Sarkozy proposed the establishment of a permanent G20 secretariat, similar to the United Nations. Seoul and Paris were suggested as possible locations for its headquarters.[29] Brazil and China supported the establishment of a secretariat, while Italy and Japan expressed opposition to the proposal.[29] South Korea proposed a "cyber secretariat" as an alternative.[29] It has been argued that the G20 has been using the OECD as a secretariat.[30]

text: List of members[edit]

text: As of 2017 there are 20 members of the group. These include, at the leaders' summits, the leaders of 19 countries and of the European Union, and, at the ministerial-level meetings, the finance ministers and central bank governors of 19 countries and of the European Union.

text: In addition each year, the G20's guests include Spain; the Chair of ASEAN; two African countries (the chair of the African Union and a representative of the New Partnership for Africa's Development) and a country (sometimes more than one) invited by the presidency, usually from its own region.[2][31][32] The first of the tables below lists the member entities and their heads of government, finance ministers and central bank governors. The second table lists relevant statistics such as population and GDP figures for each member, as well as detailing memberships of other international organisations, such as the G7, BRICS and MIKTA. Total GDP figures are given in millions of US dollars.

text: Leaders[edit]

text:
Member
Leader position
Head of government
Finance portfolio
Portfolio minister
Central bank governor

 Argentina
President
Mauricio Macri
Minister of Public Finances
Minister of the Treasury
Luis Caputo
Nicolás Dujovne
Federico Sturzenegger

 Australia
Prime Minister
Malcolm Turnbull
Treasurer
Scott Morrison
Philip Lowe

 Brazil
President
Michel Temer
Minister of Finance
Henrique Meirelles
Ilan Goldfajn

 Canada
Prime Minister
Justin Trudeau
Minister of Finance
Bill Morneau
Stephen Poloz

 China
President[note 1]
Xi Jinping[note 1]
Minister of Finance
Xiao Jie
Zhou Xiaochuan

 France
President
Emmanuel Macron
Minister of the Economy
Bruno Le Maire
François Villeroy de Galhau

 Germany
Chancellor
Angela Merkel
Minister of Finance
Wolfgang Schäuble
Jens Weidmann

 India
Prime Minister
Narendra Modi
Minister of Finance
Arun Jaitley
Urjit Patel

 Indonesia
President
Joko Widodo
Minister of Finance
Sri Mulyani Indrawati
Agus Martowardojo

 Italy
Prime Minister
Paolo Gentiloni
Minister of Economy and Finance
Pier Carlo Padoan
Ignazio Visco

 Japan
Prime Minister
Shinzō Abe
Minister of Finance
Tarō Asō
Haruhiko Kuroda

 Mexico
President
Enrique Peña Nieto
Secretary of Finance
José Meade
Agustín Carstens

 Russia
President
Vladimir Putin
Minister of Finance
Anton Siluanov
Elvira Nabiullina

 Saudi Arabia
King
Salman
Minister of Finance
Mohammed Al-Jadaan
Ahmed Abdulkarim Al-Khulaifi

 South Africa
President
Jacob Zuma
Minister of Finance
Malusi Gigaba
Lesetja Kganyago

 South Korea
President
Moon Jae-in
Minister of Strategy and Finance
Kim Dong-yeon
Lee Ju-yeol

 Turkey
President
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan
Minister of Finance
Naci Ağbal
Murat Çetinkaya

 United Kingdom
Prime Minister
Theresa May
Chancellor of the Exchequer
Philip Hammond
Mark Carney

 United States
President
Donald Trump
Secretary of the Treasury
Steven Mnuchin
Janet Yellen

 European Union[33]
President of the European Council
Donald Tusk
Commissioner for Economic and Financial Affairs, Taxation and Customs
Pierre Moscovici
Mario Draghi

President of the European Commission
Jean-Claude Juncker

text: Member country data[edit]

text:
Member
Trade mil. USD (2014)
Nom. GDP mil. USD (2014)[34]
PPP GDP mil. USD (2014)[34]
Nom. GDP per capita USD (2015)[34]
PPP GDP per capita USD (2015)[34]
HDI (2015)
Population (2014)
Area
P5
G4
G7
BRICS
MIKTA
DAC
OECD
C'wth
N11
PA
Mercosur
SAARC
Economic classification (IMF)[35]

 Argentina
142,370
594,975
924,481
13,589
22,554
0.827
42,961,000
2,780,400
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
Emerging

 Australia
496,700
1,343,608
1,246,480
50,962
47,389
0.939
23,599,000
7,692,024
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
Advanced

 Brazil
484,600
2,140,940
3,217,986
8,670
16,155
0.754
202,768,000
8,515,767
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
Emerging

 Canada
947,200
1,532,340
1,742,656
43,332
44,967
0.920
35,467,000
9,984,670
N
N
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
Advanced

 China
4,201,000
12,361,737
23,066,642
7,990
14,107
0.738
1,367,520,000
9,572,900
Y
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Emerging

 France
1,212,300
2,570,023
2,833,151
37,675
41,181
0.897
63,951,000
640,679
Y
N
Y
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Advanced

 Germany
2,866,600
3,618,621
4,122,402
40,997
46,893
0.926
80,940,000
357,114
N
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Advanced

 India
850,600
2,457,748
9,585,371
1,617
6,162
0.624
1,259,695,000
3,287,263
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
Emerging

 Indonesia
346,100
1,014,867
3,256,727
3,362
11,126
0.689
251,490,000
1,904,569
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
Emerging

 Italy
948,600
1,895,318
2,289,578
29,867
35,708
0.887
60,665,551
301,336
N
N
Y
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Advanced

 Japan
1,522,400
5,106,259
5,066,064
32,486
38,054
0.903
127,061,000
377,930
N
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Advanced

 South Korea
1,170,900
1,521,000
2,029,861
27,195
36,511
0.901
50,437,000
100,210
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
Advanced

 Mexico
813,500
1,124,316
2,410,946
9,009
17,534
0.762
119,581,789
1,964,375
N
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
Y
N
N
Emerging

 Russia
844,200
1,442,406
3,866,332
9,055
23,744
0.804
146,300,000
17,098,242
Y
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Emerging

 Saudi Arabia
521,600
689,004
1,803,419
20,813
53,624
0.847
30,624,000
2,149,690
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Emerging

 South Africa
200,100
288,199
758,123
5,695
13,165
0.666
53,699,000
1,221,037
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
Emerging

 Turkey
417,000
769,474
1,756,510
9,437
20,438
0.767
77,324,000
783,562
N
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
Emerging

 United Kingdom
1,189,400
2,609,912
2,877,505
43,771
41,159
0.909
64,511,000
242,495
Y
N
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
Advanced

 United States
3,944,000
19,377,203
19,377,203
55,805
55,805
0.920
318,523,000
9,526,468
Y
N
Y
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Advanced

 European Union
4,485,000
16,970,024
20,745,303
31,918
37,852
0.876
505,570,700
4,422,773
N
N
Y
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N/A

text: In addition to these 20 members, the chief executive officers of several other international forums and institutions participate in meetings of the G20.[2] These include the managing director and Chairman of the International Monetary Fund, the President of the World Bank, the International Monetary and Financial Committee and the Chairman of the Development Assistance Committee.

text: The G20's membership does not reflect exactly the 19 largest national economies of the world in any given year. The organization states:[1]

text: In a forum such as the G20, it is particularly important for the number of countries involved to be restricted and fixed to ensure the effectiveness and continuity of its activity. There are no formal criteria for G20 membership and the composition of the group has remained unchanged since it was established. In view of the objectives of the G20, it was considered important that countries and regions of systemic significance for the international financial system be included. Aspects such as geographical balance and population representation also played a major part.

text: All 19 member nations are among the top 33 economies as measured in GDP at nominal prices in a list published by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for 2014.[36] Not represented by membership in the G20 are Switzerland (ranked 20th by the IMF), Nigeria (21), Taiwan (26), Norway (27), the United Arab Emirates (29), Iran (30), Colombia (31), and Thailand (32), even though they rank higher than some members. The Netherlands (17), Sweden (22), Poland (23), Belgium (25), and Austria (28) are included only as part of the EU, and not independently. Spain (14) is a permanent guest member.

text: When the countries' GDP is measured at purchasing power parity (PPP) rates,[37] all 19 members are among the top 29 in the world for the year of 2014, according to the IMF. Iran (18), Taiwan (20), Nigeria (21), Thailand (22), Egypt (25), Pakistan (26), and Malaysia (28) are not G20 members, while Spain (16), Poland (23) and the Netherlands (27) are only included by virtue of being EU members. However, in a list of average GDP, calculated for the years since the group's creation (1999–2008) at both nominal and PPP rates, only Spain, the Netherlands, Nigeria, Poland, Taiwan, Iran and Thailand appear above any G20 member in both lists simultaneously.

text: Spain, being the 14th largest economy in the world and 5th in the European Union in terms of nominal GDP, has been a "permanent guest" of the organization, and the Spanish government's policy is to not request official membership.[38][39] A Spanish delegation has been invited to, and has attended, every G20 heads of state summit since the G20's inception.

text: Role of Asian countries[edit]

text: A 2011 report released by the Asian Development Bank (ADB) predicted that large Asian economies such as China and India would play a more important role in global economic governance in the future. The report claimed that the rise of emerging market economies heralded a new world order, in which the G20 would become the global economic steering committee.[40] The ADB furthermore noted that Asian countries had led the global recovery following the late-2000s recession. It predicted that the region would have a greater presence on the global stage, shaping the G20's agenda for balanced and sustainable growth through strengthening intraregional trade and stimulating domestic demand.[40]

text: Invitees[edit]

text: Typically, several participants that are not permanent members of the G20 are extended invitations to participate in the summits. Each year, the Chair of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations; the Chair of the African Union; and a representative of the New Partnership for Africa's Development are invited in their capacities as leaders of their organisations and as heads of government of their home states.[41] Additionally, the leaders of the Financial Stability Board, the International Labour Organization, the International Monetary Fund, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the United Nations, the World Bank Group and the World Trade Organization are invited and participate in pre-summit planning within the policy purview of their respective organisation.[42] Spain is a permanent non-member invitee.[41]

text: Other invitees are chosen by the host country, usually one or two countries from its own region.[41] For example, South Korea invited Singapore. International organisations which have been invited in the past include the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS), the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), the Eurasian Economic Community (EAEC), the European Central Bank (ECB), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the Global Governance Group (3G) and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). Previously, the Netherlands had a similar status to Spain while the rotating presidency of the Council of the European Union would also receive an invitation, but only in that capacity and not as their own state's leader (such as the Czech premiers Mirek Topolánek and Jan Fischer during the 2009 summits).

text: As of 2017, leaders from the following nations have been invited to the G20 summits: Azerbaijan, Benin, Brunei, Cambodia, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Guinea, Kazakhstan, Laos, Malawi, Malaysia, Mauritania, Myanmar, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, the Philippines, Poland, Senegal, Singapore, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand, the United Arab Emirates, Vietnam, and Zimbabwe.[41]

text: Permanent guest invitees[edit]

text:
Invitee
Officeholder
State
Official title

African Union (AU)
Alpha Condé
 Guinea
President
(Chairperson)

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC)
Nguyễn Xuân Phúc
 Vietnam
Prime Minister
(2017 host)

Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)
Rodrigo Duterte
 Philippines
President
(2017 Chair)

Lê Lương Minh
 Vietnam
Secretary-General

Financial Stability Board (FSB)
Mark Carney

Chairperson

International Labour Organization (ILO)
Guy Ryder

Director General

International Monetary Fund (IMF)
Christine Lagarde

Managing Director

Spain
Mariano Rajoy
 Spain
Prime Minister

New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD)
Macky Sall
 Senegal
President
(Chair)

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
José Ángel Gurría

Secretary-General

United Nations (UN)
António Guterres

Secretary-General

World Bank Group (WBG)
Jim Yong Kim

President

World Trade Organization (WTO)
Roberto Azevêdo

Director General

text: G20 Agenda[edit]

text: Financial focus[edit]

text: The initial G20 agenda, as conceived by US, Canadian and German policy makers, was very much focused on the sustainability of sovereign debt and global financial stability, in an inclusive format that would bring in the largest developing economies as equal partners. During a summit in November 2008, the leaders of the group pledged to contribute trillions to international finance organizations, including the World Bank and IMF, mainly for reestablishing the global financial system.[43][44]

text: Since inception, the recurring themes covered by G20 summit participants have related in priority to global economic growth, international trade and financial market regulation.[45]

text: Inclusive growth[edit]

text: After the adoption of the UN Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Climate Agreement in 2015, more "issues of global significance"[45][46] were added to the G20 agenda: migration, digitisation, employment, healthcare, the economic empowerment of women and development aid.[47]

text: Interrelated themes[edit]

text: Wolfgang Schäuble, German Federal Minister of Finance, has insisted on the interconnected nature of the issues facing G20 nations, be they purely financial or developmental, and the need to reach effective, cross-cutting policy measures: "Globalization has lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty, but there is also a growing rise in frustration in some quarters […] development, [national] security and migration are all interlinked"[46]

text: Criticisms[edit]

text: Exclusivity of membership[edit]

text: Although the G20 has stated that the group "economic weight and broad membership gives it a high degree of legitimacy and influence over the management of the global economy and financial system,"[48] its legitimacy has been challenged. A 2011 report for the Danish Institute for International Studies, criticised the G20's exclusivity, highlighting in particular its under-representation of the African continent and the G20's practice of inviting observers from non-member states as a mere "concession at the margins", which does not grant the organisation representational legitimacy.[49] With respect to the membership issue, U.S. President Barack Obama noted the difficulty of pleasing everyone: "everybody wants the smallest possible group that includes them. So, if they're the 21st largest nation in the world, they want the G21, and think it's highly unfair if they have been cut out."[50] Others stated in 2011 that the exclusivity is not an insurmountable problem, and proposed mechanisms by which it could become more inclusive.[51]

text: Norwegian perspective[edit]

text: In a 2010 interview with Der Spiegel, the Norwegian foreign minister Jonas Gahr Støre called the G20 "one of the greatest setbacks since World War II."[6] Although Norway is a major developed economy and the seventh-largest contributor to UN international development programs,[52] it is not a member of the EU, and thus is not represented in the G20 even indirectly.[6] Norway, like the other 173 nations not among the G-20, has little or no voice within the group. Støre characterized the G20 as a "self-appointed group", arguing that it undermines the legitimacy of international organizations set up in the aftermath of World War II, such as the IMF, World Bank and United Nations:

text: The G20 is a self-appointed group. Its composition is determined by the major countries and powers. It may be more representative than the G7 or the G8, in which only the richest countries are represented, but it is still arbitrary. We no longer live in the 19th century, a time when the major powers met and redrew the map of the world. No one needs a new Congress of Vienna.[6]

text: Norway, under the government of Erna Solberg, attended the 2017 G20 Summit in Hamburg, Germany.[53]

text: Spanish position on membership[edit]

text: As previously stated, the Spanish government's policy is to not request official membership. Despite being hit hard by the economic crisis after 2008, Spain is still the world's fourteenth largest economy by nominal GDP (the 5th in the European Union) and sixteenth largest by purchasing power parity, clearly exceeding the numbers of several current members of the G20 such as Argentina or South Africa. In addition, since the 1990s several Spanish companies have gained multinational status, often expanding their activities in culturally close Latin America, where Spain is the second biggest foreign investor after the United States and keeps an important influence. These facts have reinforced the idea that Spain should seek permanent membership of the G20. On the other hand, Spain, which is a European country, is not a representation of Latin America, therefore some observers think another country from South America should be included as well as Argentina.

text: Polish aspirations[edit]

text: Contrary to Spain, the Polish government has repeatedly asked to join the G20. During a 2010 meeting with foreign diplomats, former Polish president Lech Kaczyński said:

text: Polish economy is according to our data an 18th world economy. The place of my country is among the members of the G20. This is a very simple postulate: firstly – it results from the size of Polish economy, secondly – it results from the fact that Poland is the biggest country in its region and the biggest country that has experienced a certain story. That story is a political and economic transformation.[54]

text: (Note: as of 2016/2017[update], the Polish economy is not in the top 20 nominally or by PPP criteria.)[citation needed]

text: Before the 2009 G20 London summit, the Polish government expressed an interest in joining with Spain and the Netherlands and condemned a "organisational mess" in which a few European leaders speak in the name of all the EU without legitimate authorisation in cases which belong to the European Commission.

text: In 2012 Forbes wrote that swapping Argentina for Poland should be considered, claiming that the Polish economy was headed toward a leadership role in Europe and its membership would be more legitimate.[55] Similar opinions have been later expressed by American magazine Foreign Policy, Wall Street Journal and by Mamta Murthi from the World Bank.[56][57][58] In 2014 consulting company Ernst & Young published its report about optimal members for G20. After analyzing trade, institutional and investment links Poland was included as one of the optimal members. [59]

text: G20 membership has been part of Poland's Law and Justice party and President Andrzej Dudas political program.[60] In March 2017, Deputy Prime Minister of Poland Mateusz Morawiecki took part in a meeting of G20 financial ministers in Baden-Baden as the first Polish representative.[61][62]

text: Global Governance Group (3G) response[edit]

text: In June 2010, Singapore's representative to the United Nations warned the G20 that its decisions would affect "all countries, big and small", and asserted that prominent non-G20 members should be included in financial reform discussions.[63] Singapore thereafter took a leading role in organizing the Global Governance Group (3G), an informal grouping of 30 non-G20 countries (including several microstates and many Third World countries) with the aim of collectively channelling their views into the G20 process more effectively.[64] [65][66] Singapore's chairing of the 3G was cited as a rationale for inviting Singapore to the November 2010 G20 summit in South Korea, as well as the 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 and the recently concluded 2017 summits.[67]

text: Foreign Policy critiques[edit]

text: The American magazine Foreign Policy has published articles condemning the G20, in terms of its principal function as an alternative to the supposedly exclusive G8. It questions the actions of some of the G20 members, and advances the notion that some nations should not have membership in the first place. Furthermore, with the effects of the Great Recession still ongoing, the magazine has criticized the G20's efforts to implement reforms of the world's financial institutions, branding such efforts as failed.[68]

text: Wider concerns[edit]

text: The G20's prominent membership gives it a strong input on global policy despite lacking any formal ability to enforce rules. There are disputes over the legitimacy of the G20,[69] and criticisms of its organisation and the efficacy of its declarations.[70]

text: The G20's transparency and accountability have been questioned by critics, who call attention to the absence of a formal charter and the fact that the most important G20 meetings are closed-door.[71] In 2001, the economist Frances Stewart proposed an Economic Security Council within the United Nations as an alternative to the G20. In such a council, members would be elected by the General Assembly based on their importance in the world economy, and the contribution they are willing to provide to world economic development.[72]

text: The cost and extent of summit-related security is often a contentious issue in the hosting country, and G20 summits have attracted protesters from a variety of backgrounds, including information activists, opponents of fractional-reserve banking and anti-capitalists. In 2010, the Toronto G20 summit sparked mass protests and rioting, leading to the largest mass arrest in Canadia=ProtestCanadaG20/>


document_title: Mountain Time Zone

question_text: where does the time change in west texas

root

text: Mountain Time Zone

text: Canada[edit]

text: Only one Canadian province is fully contained in the Mountain Time Zone:

tag: p

text: Alberta

tag: ul

text: One province and one territory is split between the Mountain Time Zone and the Pacific Time Zone:

text:
British Columbia - far eastern regions
Northwest Territories - Tungsten

text: One territory and one province is split between the Mountain Time Zone and the Central Time Zone

text:
Nunavut: Kitikmeot Region
Saskatchewan: Lloydminster and vicinity

text: Mexico[edit]

text: The following states have the same time as Mountain Time Zone:

text:
Baja California Sur
Chihuahua
Nayarit: Except for the Bahía de Banderas municipality, which uses the Central Time Zone.
Sonora – no daylight saving time, always on MST.
Sinaloa
Revillagigedo Islands (Colima): three of the four islands have the same time as Mountain Time Zone, Isla Socorro, San Benedicto Island and Roca Partida.

text: United States[edit]

text: Five states are fully contained in the Mountain Time Zone:

text:
Arizona – no DST
Colorado
Montana
Utah
Wyoming

text: Three states are split between the Mountain Time Zone and the Pacific Time Zone:

text:
Idaho – Southern Idaho
Nevada – all, except for West Wendover, Mountain City, Owyhee, Jackpot, and Jarbidge
Oregon – primary time zone for Malheur County

text: Seven states are split between the Mountain Time Zone and the Central Time Zone:

text:
Kansas – Sherman, Wallace, Greeley and Hamilton counties
Nebraska – western third
North Dakota – southwest part
New Mexico – all, except for Nara Visa
Oklahoma – Kenton
South Dakota – western half
Texas – El Paso and Hudspeth counties


document_title: Colonial South and the Chesapeake

question_text: what crops were vital to the success of the southern colonies

text: Colonial South and the Chesapeake

text: Colonial economics[edit]

text: Agriculture[edit]

text: Though indigo and rice were also grown, the demand for tobacco and the ease with which it grew turned tobacco into the largest cash crop for the Chesapeake and southern colonies. The desirable niche that tobacco held in the world market resulted in great prosperity for the regions in which it was grown.

text: As agriculture grew in importance in the southern economy, the demand for more workers grew as well. Early on, labor shortages were solved temporarily by indentured servitude; however, this system eventually proved inefficient. Because Native Americans proved independent and difficult to enslave for forced cultivation and indentured servants were only temporary, growers in the South turned to African slave importation to meet their demand for labor. These slaves left a lasting impact upon southern agricultural techniques as well as social aspects of southern society. The family was also affected by the change also, because the need for slaves.

text: Trade[edit]

text: Tobacco products, lumber, grain and boats.

text: Local[edit]

text: The local economy in the Chesapeake and southern colonies was characterized by the headright, the right to receive 50 acres (200,000 m2) of land for any immigrant who settled in Virginia or paid for the transportation of an immigrant who settled in Virginia (51.342 acres (207,770 m2) per head). This was intended to promote settlement and ownership of small farms by several immigrants, from which staple crops such as indigo, rice, and especially tobacco could be grown for profit.[1]

text: Social standing was determined by how much wealth a person had. The best way to get more of it was to acquire more land for more cultivation. Since bringing over indentured servants was the easiest way get more land, it became a popular for wealthy planters to bring in the indentured servants in mass numbers. Also on the rise was the selling and buying of land, due to the fact that captains of ships sold the land that they received every time they landed with a load of indentured servants. This caused the development of large plantations near the Atlantic Coast and little urban activity, as the small farms were forced to live in the back country where Indian relations were volatile.[2]

text: So it was because of all these effects from the Headright that made the local economy largely rural. As a result, the society became polarized between those who owned large tracts of land near the Atlantic and people whose land was subject to Indian attack as well as former indentured servants who could not afford the favored land . And of course it did not help that, since tobacco prices were unstable from the Navigation Acts, there was a prolonged economic depression. One outcome of this polarized society and economic depravity was Bacon’s Rebellion, where farmers, wanting the unused Indian lands, attacked the local tribes and the government. This led to a shift in buying more slaves from Africa, as they did not all speak the same language, making them much easier to control. The local economy polarized the society from the Atlantic Coast plantation owners to the small scale farmers who wanted the unused Indian land.[3]

text: Global[edit]

text: Global trade in the Chesapeake and southern colonies was mainly centered on the products of their agriculture. Cash crops like tobacco, rice, and indigo were the areas main exports. The deerskin trade was also a major factor in the economic growth of Charleston, South Carolina, which exported an average of 54,000 deer skins per year between 1699 and 1715. Most of these exports were headed to Britain, whose Navigation Acts restricted trade with other countries. Tobacco, rice, and indigo, which were enumerated products, could only be traded to Britain which had advantages and disadvantages. Obvious disadvantages would be that trade could only occur with one country, eliminating hundreds of thousands of possible buyers. Fortunately, growing demand for these products meant a ready market with mostly escalating prices.[4]

text: Since the demand for all of these products continued to grow, farmers found themselves with a little extra money around. Thus, slave importing began to grow and grow and grow until Charleston was a leading importer in slaves. These slaves led to increased production, increased profit, and a decrease of payment for workers. All of this moneymaking allowed farmers to buy more slaves to continue the cycle. Slaves brought their African knowledge which aided the development of rice and indigo growing. The diversifying of agriculture was key to avoid economic slumps that could have resulted from the fluctuating tobacco prices. The slaves also completed the trading process known as Triangle trade. The south and Chesapeake's point of the triangle involved the import of slaves from Africa, and the exporting of tobacco and other goods to England.[5]

text: The agricultural society affected which items southern colonists exported. Slaves imported into the society influenced which crops would be grown and therefore which crops would be exported. Slave’s usefulness and the economic gain to be had by using them also increased the number of Africans that were imported. All of the economic success that resulted from these trading tendencies led to a bigger rich-poor gap in society as the rich became richer and bought more slaves to get even more money. Growth of the wealthy class in turn led to the importing of more luxuries to the region as families began to show off their success. At the beginning of the 18th century, global trade of the southern colonies was changing a lot about their society.

text: Social issues[edit]

text: Religion[edit]

text: Protestant Christianity was the predominant religion in the Chesapeake colonies until the late 19th century.

text: Class hierarchy[edit]

text: Much like the old world, colonial America was divided into a rigid social structure. Pedigree mattered more than anything, and wealthy, English families stood at the top of the social ladder. These families often controlled vast amounts of workers as well. These workers, the African American Slaves, were the lowliest of those living in the colonies, standing below even the indentured workers who powered much of the new world.[6] Next, predictably, were these same indentured servants, men who were offered passage to America in return for years of labor. Though some were honest men, wishing to scrape out a new life in the new world, many of these men were criminals, waifs, and convicts, sent to the new world as punishment.

text: The largest social class in the South and Chesapeake regions were the merchants, vendors and small farmers of the colonies. These people were the rank and file citizens, moderately educated and skilled, but willing to work hard and create the America they needed.[7] Finally, at the top of the social ladder stood old, wealthy English families, clergymen, magistrates and large land holders in America. In this class, etiquette was rigidly enforced; no one was allowed to "dress above their station" and were forced to sit in church according to their own social standing. This class hierarchy lasted decades, and remnants of it still exist in today's free-er America.

text: Dr. Alexander Hamilton (1712 – 1756) was a Scottish-born doctor and writer who lived and worked in Annapolis, Maryland. Leo Lemay says his 1744 travel diary Gentleman's Progress: The Itinerarium of Dr. Alexander Hamilton is "the best single portrait of men and manners, of rural and urban life, of the wide range of society and scenery in colonial America." [8]

text: Slavery[edit]

text: In the early 17th century, Americans in Virginia and Maryland discovered tobacco to be very profitable. A lot of land was given to tobacco plantations because there was such a high demand for the good in Europe. Before the 17th century indentured servants were used to cultivate the land, but soon the new world's appeal to potential indentured servants decrease because the land grants they were formerly promised were no longer available. Therefore, plantation owners began to import slaves from Africa to do the work. The slaves were taken from their families in Africa and worked all day cultivating, drying leaves, and packing the tobacco. Many slaves tried to escape from their owners but very few succeeded. Generally they were taken back to the plantation and whipped hundreds of times or castrated as punishment.[9]

text: Carolina was a slave colony upon conception. Experienced slaves were brought from Africa to cultivate rice and indigo. By the 18th century the slave population outnumbered the white population. Lawmakers feared the growing African population, so they began to enforce restrictions on the number of black people that were imported. Another way they controlled the population was executing slaves convicted of violence against a white. [10]

text: Georgia[edit]

text: Founded in 1733 as a model yeoman society, slavery was prohibited. James Oglethorpe, one of the Georgia Trustees strongly resisted pressure from South Carolina to introduce slavery (late in life Oglethorpe was closely associated with Granville Sharp and other leading abolitionists). However, by 1749 powerful South Carolina interests and their allies had clandestinely brought so many slaves into Georgia that the Georgia Trustees were unable to stem the tide. The young colony soon became a satellite of South Carolina, and in a few years had 15,000 enslaved black people working on the plantations.[11][12]

text: Carolina[edit]

text: Carolina was a slave colony upon conception. Experienced slaves were brought from Africa to cultivate rice and indigo. By the early 18th century the slave population outnumbered the white population.

text: Immigration[edit]

text: The first successful settlement in the Chesapeake, Jamestown (1607), was set up by the Virginia Company and therefore its population was made up mostly of English. Because of its large reliance on labor for tobacco plantations that fueled the economy, the Chesapeake relied on indentured servants to work the land. However, after the events of Bacon’s Rebellion plantation owners began to find slaves to be a better investment than indentured servants. This was a gradual shift by the 18th century but by 1750 the population of Virginia had skyrocketed to 450,000 and was almost evenly divided between African and European peoples.[13]

text: Maryland was established by George Calvert as a refuge for Roman Catholics. Although it was intended as a refuge for Catholics a significant part of the population was Protestants and Protestants gained control of the colony during the English civil wars.[14]

text: Carolina, originally one colony, later divided into North and South Carolina due to influences by immigrants. While North Carolina adopted the practices and economy of Virginia due to similar environmental set up and immigrant ethnicity, South Carolina developed differently because of the large influx of immigrants from Barbados. This diversity then led to their split with time. By the early 18th century the English government had restricted the immigration of English people to the colonies which caused a growing number of Scotch-Irish and Germans to emigrate. These people tended to settle in the back country and away from the more developed coastal areas.[15]

text: Families[edit]

text: The husband was master of his household and expected to earn a living for his family. A woman's place was at home or helping her husband. Except for children of the elite, all others were expected to work by age 11 or 12.

text: Although slave marriages were not legally recognized, slaves – particularly females – did what they could to...

text: Urban and rural structure[edit]

text: Most large population centers in colonial America were located in New England or the Middle Colonies. In the Chesapeake Bay area cities included only Baltimore, Maryland, and Richmond, Virginia, in the Chesapeake region, and in the southern colonies, Charleston, South Carolina, and Savannah, Georgia. These cities served as major seaports for the colonies in their trade with Europe, African, and the Caribbean. They were highly stratified by wealth.

text: In the Chesapeake and Southern regions, society was based heavily on agriculture, and therefore the landscape was much more rural. A large portion of land in the South was frontier "back country" that was less settled and abutted Indian land. The agricultural land was organized into a plantation system: a manorial structure in which a gentry of landed aristocrats (most of whom were successful early settlers to the region) owned the plantation. Bondspeople worked the land. These workers were indentured servants or, increasingly as the trade became more established, African slaves. Slaves made up a large percentage of the South’s population.

text: The remainder of the population was those who were neither landed gentry nor slaves. These colonists (who were not only British—or of British descent—but also German and Scots-Irish) farmed small plots of land which they owned. This group, collectively known as yeoman farmers, constituted the majority of European colonists in the South and the Chesapeake areas.[16] In the upland country, most free European settlers had similar conditions of wealth and were not as stratified as in the cities.[17]

text: Colonial politics[edit]

text: Government systems[edit]

text: The first democratically elected government was the House of Burgesses, which was first convened in 1619 by Governor George Yeardley in Virginia. The House of Burgesses, as with most colonial assemblies, was elected by free, white, landowning men. [18]

text: Both the southern colonies and those in the Chesapeake had a similar government: a governor and a council appointed by the crown, and an assembly or house of representatives that was elected by the people. The governor had the most power of any, his duties including judicial, religious, military, appointing officials, leader of legislature, but no power over public funds. The council generally consisted of 12 upper class residents of their colony. Assembly was the only branch with the power over funds and taxation, and it used this power as leverage over the governor to occasionally steal his power. As much power as the governor had, the ability of the assembly to exert power over the British-appointed governor led was a display of the division between the colonies and their mother country.[19]

text: Bacon’s Rebellion, likewise, showed how much influence the people could exert over their government when they disagreed with what the upper class in the government decided. The government was generally run by the rich plantation owners who already had enough land and just wanted to avoid conflict, so the poor free men rebelled by holding the House of Burgesses hostage. While succeeding for a while, the rebellion fell apart when Nathaniel Bacon died, though it still left a reminder of how much influence the average settler had in early American government.

text: British influence[edit]

text: As satellites of the British Empire, the Chesapeake region and the southern colonies were subject to the powerful influences of their home country. While the British impacted many aspects of American culture, the political prestige and power of the British Empire perhaps had the strongest effect of all. The political structure of the Southern Colonies and the Chesapeake region and the manner of the different American political figures reflected the structure of the British Government.

text: When the Southern and Chesapeake colonies were first settled, they encountered numerous obstacles including conflicts with the natives. These conflicts led to the appointing of Royal Governors by the King.[20] These governors resembled the King and kept order throughout the colonies. However, many of the traits of local governments remained intact.

text: In 1660, the King tightened up the royal government's hold in the colonies due to uprisings throughout the South and the Chesapeake region.[21] The power of the Royal Government grew and they were soon in control of their trade. New laws were passed along with the Navigation Acts, and Vice Admiralty Courts were also established to prevent biased judging towards colonists.

text: As the "owners" of the Southern and Chesapeake colonies, Great Britain imposed its will upon the region and established control by intervening in legislative affairs. It appointed officials to run each section and they served as rulers away from home. New laws also forced the colonies to change the way they managed their government and economy. While the colonies were separated geographically from their homeland, the powerful political influence of the King and Parliament greatly affected their politics.


document_title: 1983 United States embassy bombing

question_text: who claimed responsibility for the bombing of the embassy in beirut

text: 1983 United States embassy bombing

text: Bombing[edit]

text: The car bomb was detonated by a suicide bomber driving a delivery van packed with about 2,000 pounds (910 kg) of explosives at approximately 1:00 p.m. (GMT+2) April 18, 1983. The van, originally sold in Texas, bought used and shipped to the Gulf,[1] gained access to the embassy compound and parked under the portico at the very front of the building, where it exploded. Former CIA operative Robert Baer's account says that the van broke through an outbuilding, crashed through the lobby door and exploded there.[2] The blast collapsed the entire central facade of the horseshoe-shaped building, leaving the wreckage of balconies and offices in heaped tiers of rubble, and spewing masonry, metal and glass fragments in a wide swath. The explosion was heard throughout West Beirut and broke windows as far as a mile away. Rescue workers worked around the clock, unearthing the dead and wounded.

text: Robert S. Dillon, then Ambassador to Lebanon, recounted the attack in his oral history:

text: All of a sudden, the window blew in. I was very lucky, because I had my arm and the T-shirt in front of my face, which protected me from the flying glass. I ended up flat on my back. I never heard the explosion. Others said that it was the loudest explosion they ever heard. It was heard from a long distance away.

text: As I lay on the floor on my back, the brick wall behind my desk blew out. Everything seemed to happen in slow motion. The wall fell on my legs; I could not feel them. I thought they were gone. The office filled with smoke, dust, and tear gas. What happened was that the blast first blew in the window and then traveled up an air shaft from the first floor to behind my desk. We had had tear gas canisters on the first floor. The blast set them off so that the air rush that came up through the shaft brought the tear gas with it and also collapsed the wall.

text: ...We didn’t know what had happened. The central stairway was gone, but the building had another stairway, which we used to make our way down, picking our way through the rubble. We were astounded to see the damage below us. I didn’t realize that the entire bay of the building below my office had been destroyed. I hadn’t grasped that yet. I remember speculating that some people had undoubtedly been hurt. As we descended, we saw people hurt. Everybody had this funny white look because they were all covered with dust. They were staggering around.

text: Death toll[edit]

text: A total of 63 people were killed in the bombing: 32 Lebanese employees, 17 Americans, and 14 visitors and passersby.[4] Of the Americans killed, eight worked for the Central Intelligence Agency, including the CIA's top Middle East analyst and Near East director, Robert Ames, Station Chief Kenneth Haas, James Lewis and most of the Beirut staff of the CIA. Others killed included William R. McIntyre, deputy director of the United States Agency for International Development, two of his aides, and four U.S. military personnel. Lebanese victims included clerical workers at the embassy, visa applicants waiting in line and nearby motorists and pedestrians.[5] An additional 120 or so people were wounded in the bombing.

text: Response[edit]

text: Responses[edit]

text: U.S. President Ronald Reagan on April 18 denounced the "vicious terrorist bombing" as a "cowardly act," saying, "This criminal act on a diplomatic establishment will not deter us from our goals of peace in the region."[6] Two envoys, Philip C. Habib and Morris Draper, continued their peace mission in Beirut to discuss Lebanese troop withdrawals with a renewed sense of urgency.

text: The next day, Ambassador Robert Dillon, who had narrowly escaped injury in the bombing, said: "Paramount among the essential business is our work for the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Lebanon." It is only by securing Lebanese government control over the country "that terrible tragedies like the one we experienced yesterday can be avoided in the future."[5]

text: The President of Lebanon, Amine Gemayel, cabled President Reagan on April 18, saying, "The Lebanese people and myself express our deepest condolences to the families of the U.S. victims. The cross of peace is the burden of the courageous."[5] Meanwhile, Lebanon asked the U.S., France, and Italy to double the size of the peacekeeping force. As of March 16, it numbered about 4,800 troops, including some 1,200 U.S. Marines, 1,400 Italian soldiers, 2,100 French paratroopers and 100 British soldiers.

text: Iran denied any role in the attack. Foreign Minister, Ali Akbar Velayati said, "We deny any involvement and we think this allegation is another propaganda plot against us."[7]

text: On April 19, Prime Minister Menachem Begin of Israel sent President Reagan a message of condolence for the embassy bombing. "I write in the name of Israel when I express to you my deep shock at the terrible outrage which took the lives of so many of the American embassy in Beirut yesterday."[5] Defense Minister Moshe Arens, was quoted by Israeli radio that he told the cabinet the attack "justified Israel's demands for security arrangements in Lebanon." Minister Yitzhak Shamir of Israel called the embassy bombing "shocking" but added that, "In Lebanon nothing is surprising. I think the lesson is simple and understood. The security problems in Lebanon are still most serious, and terrorist organizations will continue to operate there, at times with great success."[5]

text: U.S. Congressional response[edit]

text: The House Foreign Affairs Committee April 19 voted to approve $251 million in additional economic and military aid for Lebanon, as requested by the administration. But it attached an amendment to the bill that would force the White House to seek approval for any expanded U.S. military role.

text: The Senate Foreign Relations Committee followed suit April 20, approving the aid request but attaching an amendment that required the president to obtain congressional authorization for "any substantial expansion in the number or role of U.S. armed forces in Lebanon or for the creation of a new, expanded or extended multinational peacekeeping force in Lebanon." If Congress did not act jointly on such a request within 60 days, however, the increase would then take effect automatically.

text: The Senate amendment was sponsored as a compromise by committee Chairman Charles H. Percy (R, Ill.). It prevented a move by the committee's ranking Democrat, Claiborne Pell (R.I.), to extend the 1973 War Powers Resolution to Lebanon. On April 20, Pell said he would have had the votes to apply the resolution to U.S. Marines in Lebanon. The law limited presidential commitment of troops in hostile situations to a maximum of 90 days unless Congress specifically approved their use.

text: Deputy Secretary of State Kenneth W. Dam, in a letter to the committee, had argued forcefully against use of the War Powers Resolution. Dam said it would "amount to a public finding that U.S. forces will be exposed to imminent risk of involvement in hostilities", which "could give entirely the wrong public impression" of U.S. expectations for Lebanon's future. Several influential congressmen had been urging an end to the U.S. military role in Lebanon. After the embassy bombing, April 19, Sen. Barry Goldwater (R, Ariz.) said, "I think it's high time we bring the boys home."

text: Aftermath[edit]

text:
[hide]

v
t
e

Lebanese Civil War

First phase 1975–1977

Bus massacre
Hotels
Black Saturday
Karantina
Damour
Tel al-Zaatar

Second phase 1977–1982

Hundred Days' War
Litani
Ehden
Safra
Zahleh
1981 Israeli bombing

Third phase 1982–1983

1982 Lebanon War
1982 Iranian diplomats kidnapping
Sabra and Shatila
U.S. Embassy bombing
Barracks bombings
Mountain War

Fourth phase 1984–1990

U.S. embassy annex bombing
War of the Camps
Beirut bombing (1985)
LF coup
October 13 massacre

tag: table

text: Responsibility[edit]

text: A pro-Iranian group calling itself the Islamic Jihad Organization took responsibility for the bombing in a telephone call to a news office immediately after the blast. The anonymous caller said, "This is part of the Iranian revolution's campaign against imperialist targets throughout the world. We shall keep striking at any crusader presence in Lebanon, including the international forces."[8] (The group had earlier taken responsibility for a grenade attack in which five U.S. members of the international peacekeeping force had been wounded.)

text: Judge John Bates of the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. on September 8, 2003, awarded in a default judgment, $123 million to 29 American victims and family members of Americans killed in the bombing. Judge Royce Lamberth of the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. on May 30, 2003, determined that the bombing was carried out by the militant group Hezbollah with the approval and financing of senior Iranian officials, paving the way for the victims to seek damages. The trial had opened March 17. Iran was not present in court to challenge witnesses nor present evidence of their own.

text: Other effects[edit]

text: Following the attack, the embassy was moved to a supposedly more secure location in East Beirut. However, on September 20, 1984, another car bomb exploded at this embassy annex, killing twenty Lebanese and two American soldiers.

text: The April bombing was one of the first suicide attacks in the region. Other suicide car bombings over the next eight months included one against the U.S. and French embassies in Kuwait, a second attack on Israeli Army's headquarters in Tyre, and the extremely destructive attacks on the U.S. Marine and French Paratrooper barracks in Beirut on October 23, 1983.

text: Along with the Marine Barracks bombing, the 1983 U.S. Embassy bombing prompted the Inman Report, a review of overseas security for the U.S. Department of State. This in turn prompted the creation of the Bureau of Diplomatic Security and the Diplomatic Security Service within the U.S. State Department.