The enduring challenge of any gathering of international leaders is to make sure the event is more than a photo op. And recent meetings have met that challenge serving as the primary platform for the world’s largest and most powerful governments to coordinate their responses to the economic collapse and continuing recession.
The implosion of the financial system unified the world. The panic that was sparked by Lehman Brothers’ collapse caused investors to pull funds from even the safest asset classes. Markets around the world lost billions.
In November 2008, in the wake of the collapse, the world leaders came together at a G20 meeting and agreed to “use fiscal measures to stimulate domestic demand to rapid effect” and to take “whatever further actions are necessary to stabilize the financial system.” At that moment, leaders were united by a common threat and responded with a united front: stimulus, low interest rates, and bailouts.
With the G20 serving as the “premier forum for international economic cooperation,” the G8 has looked to redefine itself. One of the explicit aims of the group under the French presidency is “avoiding duplication of the G20 agenda.”
With economic coordination and response removed from its purview—particularly important now given the sovereign debt crisis in Europe—what should the G8 focus on?
Surely there is no dearth of challenges that need attention. The devastation in Japan, NATO’s engagement in Libya, the democracy movement sweeping through the Middle East, high oil prices—yet these issues are not on the agenda for the upcoming meetings in France. In their stead are: Internet-related issues; peace and security, particularly drug trafficking and terrorism; and partnership with Africa.
No doubt the agenda highlights important issues that need action—particularly Africa. But they are not the pressing global issues of the day. Why?
Firstly, gatherings of international leaders always need to be planned long in advance, and preset agendas can hardly predict the next crisis. For example, when this agenda was set, Japan had yet to be hit by the double blow of an earthquake and tsunami.
Also, just because something is not on the agenda does not mean it will not be discussed. Libya will probably be a hot topic since six nations at the meetings are members of NATO, which is overseeing the bombing campaign.
Finally, these gatherings hope to set long-term consensus, rather than the most recent crisis.
However, the unavoidable truth is that the G8 meetings are no longer the preferred decision-making body for global consensus. A recent illustration of that was President Nicolas Sarkozy’s failed attempt to get a no-fly zone in Libya through the body, only for one to be approved by the United Nations a few days later. The group also took the commendable step of passing up economic coordination to the G20 group for this exact reason: a group that did not include Brazil, China, and India could hardly develop consensus within the global economy during a time of crisis.
Having ceded authority on military and economic policy matters to other bodies, what is the role of the G8 then?
The forum recognizes that it is in the process of transformation. If that is the case, then it should take the time to transform itself.
The G8 members first came together because they represented the largest economies in the capitalist world. Using this same metric, the group is missing the world’s second, eighth, and eleventh largest economies—China, Brazil, and India, respectively. By expanding the group to include a limited group of countries, it would almost immediately include all the major and up-and-coming players on the world scene, while also keeping the club small enough to make policy proclamations. The G8 currently claims to represent 15 percent of the world’s population and 65 percent of its GDP; including these three nations would jump those numbers to over 50 percent of population and about 75 percent of global GDP.
This idea has been floated before. The so-called “Plus-Five” group of Brazil, China, India, Mexico, and South Africa has been invited to past meetings, and President Sarkozy pushed to formally expand the G8 to include them in 2008; however, little came of the initiative.
With the global economy on the mend again, this may be the time to look to expand. For even if the G8 is able to reach meaningful conclusions at the upcoming meetings, it is missing some of the most important actors on the very issues they hope to resolve. No agreement on Internet policy, for example, can be reached without China, which is often cited for censoring and security issues.
The world and its challenges have changed. Now its institutions need to respond.
Mark C. Partridge is a Senior Contributing Editor to The Diplomatic Courier magazine. This article appeared in a special printed volume for the G8 Summit in France this month.
a global affairs media network
The French G8 Summit Agenda: Does it Address the Major Challenges?
May 23, 2011
The enduring challenge of any gathering of international leaders is to make sure the event is more than a photo op. And recent meetings have met that challenge serving as the primary platform for the world’s largest and most powerful governments to coordinate their responses to the economic collapse and continuing recession.
The implosion of the financial system unified the world. The panic that was sparked by Lehman Brothers’ collapse caused investors to pull funds from even the safest asset classes. Markets around the world lost billions.
In November 2008, in the wake of the collapse, the world leaders came together at a G20 meeting and agreed to “use fiscal measures to stimulate domestic demand to rapid effect” and to take “whatever further actions are necessary to stabilize the financial system.” At that moment, leaders were united by a common threat and responded with a united front: stimulus, low interest rates, and bailouts.
With the G20 serving as the “premier forum for international economic cooperation,” the G8 has looked to redefine itself. One of the explicit aims of the group under the French presidency is “avoiding duplication of the G20 agenda.”
With economic coordination and response removed from its purview—particularly important now given the sovereign debt crisis in Europe—what should the G8 focus on?
Surely there is no dearth of challenges that need attention. The devastation in Japan, NATO’s engagement in Libya, the democracy movement sweeping through the Middle East, high oil prices—yet these issues are not on the agenda for the upcoming meetings in France. In their stead are: Internet-related issues; peace and security, particularly drug trafficking and terrorism; and partnership with Africa.
No doubt the agenda highlights important issues that need action—particularly Africa. But they are not the pressing global issues of the day. Why?
Firstly, gatherings of international leaders always need to be planned long in advance, and preset agendas can hardly predict the next crisis. For example, when this agenda was set, Japan had yet to be hit by the double blow of an earthquake and tsunami.
Also, just because something is not on the agenda does not mean it will not be discussed. Libya will probably be a hot topic since six nations at the meetings are members of NATO, which is overseeing the bombing campaign.
Finally, these gatherings hope to set long-term consensus, rather than the most recent crisis.
However, the unavoidable truth is that the G8 meetings are no longer the preferred decision-making body for global consensus. A recent illustration of that was President Nicolas Sarkozy’s failed attempt to get a no-fly zone in Libya through the body, only for one to be approved by the United Nations a few days later. The group also took the commendable step of passing up economic coordination to the G20 group for this exact reason: a group that did not include Brazil, China, and India could hardly develop consensus within the global economy during a time of crisis.
Having ceded authority on military and economic policy matters to other bodies, what is the role of the G8 then?
The forum recognizes that it is in the process of transformation. If that is the case, then it should take the time to transform itself.
The G8 members first came together because they represented the largest economies in the capitalist world. Using this same metric, the group is missing the world’s second, eighth, and eleventh largest economies—China, Brazil, and India, respectively. By expanding the group to include a limited group of countries, it would almost immediately include all the major and up-and-coming players on the world scene, while also keeping the club small enough to make policy proclamations. The G8 currently claims to represent 15 percent of the world’s population and 65 percent of its GDP; including these three nations would jump those numbers to over 50 percent of population and about 75 percent of global GDP.
This idea has been floated before. The so-called “Plus-Five” group of Brazil, China, India, Mexico, and South Africa has been invited to past meetings, and President Sarkozy pushed to formally expand the G8 to include them in 2008; however, little came of the initiative.
With the global economy on the mend again, this may be the time to look to expand. For even if the G8 is able to reach meaningful conclusions at the upcoming meetings, it is missing some of the most important actors on the very issues they hope to resolve. No agreement on Internet policy, for example, can be reached without China, which is often cited for censoring and security issues.
The world and its challenges have changed. Now its institutions need to respond.
Mark C. Partridge is a Senior Contributing Editor to The Diplomatic Courier magazine. This article appeared in a special printed volume for the G8 Summit in France this month.
