America's president must back the Group of Twenty
William Drozdiak | Sunday, 13 July 2008
One of the biggest foreign policy challenges facing the next US president will be how to modernise the main forums of global decision-making. Crises in Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran will consume much of his time, but Barack Obama or John McCain must lead the way in making the United Nations and other institutions more relevant to our age. Otherwise, the influence of the US will continue to wane.
The place to start is to abolish the annual summits of the Group of Eight (G-8) leading industrial nations in favour of the Group of 20, which draws members from all continents, represents two-thirds of the world's population and accounts for 90 per cent of all economic activity. In contrast, the G8, which was formed in 1976 and whose leaders have been meeting in Tokyo, excludes such rising powers as China, India and Brazil and governs just more than one-tenth of the world's inhabitants.
The G20 has existed only since 1999 but has already done a great deal to build consensus on global issues among the big industrial and emerging market economies. Until now, its annual meetings have included only central bank governors and finance ministers but the mounting urgency of planet-wide problems - from nuclear weapons proliferation to climate change - requires the participation of world leaders and foreign ministers.
By leading a campaign to invest new powers in the G20 and scrap the G8, the US could show that it is serious about spurning the path of arrogant unilateralism that has so badly eroded its stature during George W. Bush's presidency. It would also help circumvent the sterile debate over reforming the UN Security Council, whose five permanent members - China, Russia, Britain, France and the US - have failed to come up with a mutually acceptable plan to expand their ranks.
Other global institutions also seem stuck in a time warp. Belgium's vote still carries as much as weight as China's within the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The World Bank, in spite of strenuous efforts by Robert Zoellick, its president, to promote greater transparency and other reforms, still reflects an archaic world pecking order in the composition of its board of directors.
The G8, while of more recent vintage, seems even more distorted. Europe's influence is vastly overstated with the presence of Germany, Italy, Britain, France and the president of the European Union. The US and Canada give north America too much clout compared with Asia, where Japan is the sole voice. Russia was added a decade ago as a reward for its steps toward becoming a democracy, although Vladimir Putin's presidency over the past eight years seems to have reversed that course.
There has been remarkably little discussion in the US presidential campaign about what kind of international strategy should be followed. Mr McCain suggested it might be necessary to expel Russia from the G8, though lately he seems to have backtracked. Mr McCain has also spoken of creating a "league of democracies", but that has met with a chilly reception from US allies in Europe and Asia, which fear it would undermine the primacy of the UN, Nato and the EU.
The G20 has been gathering strong backing across many continents because it is one of the rare world forums that reflects geographic, political and economic balance. It was established in response to the Asian and Russian financial crises of the 1990s and in recognition of the fact that the interests of emerging market countries were not well represented.
Unlike the transatlantic axis that has dominated global institutions since the second world war, the G20 has earned legitimacy by providing an opportunity for rising powers from other regions to demonstrate their clout in the 21st century economy. Beyond the G8 members, the G20 offers a voice for Latin America through Brazil and Argentina. From Asia, besides Japan there is China, India, South Korea and Indonesia. Saudi Arabia represents the Gulf and Middle East, while South Africa accounts for the sub-Saharan region.
The breadth of the G20 offers hope of restoring public faith in institutions of global governance. The next president should make a point of proving that the US will show, as Thomas Jefferson wrote, "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind" by throwing its weight behind a global conclave that would reflect the broader interests of humanity rather than the narrow agenda of elite industrial powers.
The writer is president of the American Council on Germany and senior adviser with McLarty Associates. He writes in a personal capacity. FT Syndication Service
The place to start is to abolish the annual summits of the Group of Eight (G-8) leading industrial nations in favour of the Group of 20, which draws members from all continents, represents two-thirds of the world's population and accounts for 90 per cent of all economic activity. In contrast, the G8, which was formed in 1976 and whose leaders have been meeting in Tokyo, excludes such rising powers as China, India and Brazil and governs just more than one-tenth of the world's inhabitants.
The G20 has existed only since 1999 but has already done a great deal to build consensus on global issues among the big industrial and emerging market economies. Until now, its annual meetings have included only central bank governors and finance ministers but the mounting urgency of planet-wide problems - from nuclear weapons proliferation to climate change - requires the participation of world leaders and foreign ministers.
By leading a campaign to invest new powers in the G20 and scrap the G8, the US could show that it is serious about spurning the path of arrogant unilateralism that has so badly eroded its stature during George W. Bush's presidency. It would also help circumvent the sterile debate over reforming the UN Security Council, whose five permanent members - China, Russia, Britain, France and the US - have failed to come up with a mutually acceptable plan to expand their ranks.
Other global institutions also seem stuck in a time warp. Belgium's vote still carries as much as weight as China's within the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The World Bank, in spite of strenuous efforts by Robert Zoellick, its president, to promote greater transparency and other reforms, still reflects an archaic world pecking order in the composition of its board of directors.
The G8, while of more recent vintage, seems even more distorted. Europe's influence is vastly overstated with the presence of Germany, Italy, Britain, France and the president of the European Union. The US and Canada give north America too much clout compared with Asia, where Japan is the sole voice. Russia was added a decade ago as a reward for its steps toward becoming a democracy, although Vladimir Putin's presidency over the past eight years seems to have reversed that course.
There has been remarkably little discussion in the US presidential campaign about what kind of international strategy should be followed. Mr McCain suggested it might be necessary to expel Russia from the G8, though lately he seems to have backtracked. Mr McCain has also spoken of creating a "league of democracies", but that has met with a chilly reception from US allies in Europe and Asia, which fear it would undermine the primacy of the UN, Nato and the EU.
The G20 has been gathering strong backing across many continents because it is one of the rare world forums that reflects geographic, political and economic balance. It was established in response to the Asian and Russian financial crises of the 1990s and in recognition of the fact that the interests of emerging market countries were not well represented.
Unlike the transatlantic axis that has dominated global institutions since the second world war, the G20 has earned legitimacy by providing an opportunity for rising powers from other regions to demonstrate their clout in the 21st century economy. Beyond the G8 members, the G20 offers a voice for Latin America through Brazil and Argentina. From Asia, besides Japan there is China, India, South Korea and Indonesia. Saudi Arabia represents the Gulf and Middle East, while South Africa accounts for the sub-Saharan region.
The breadth of the G20 offers hope of restoring public faith in institutions of global governance. The next president should make a point of proving that the US will show, as Thomas Jefferson wrote, "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind" by throwing its weight behind a global conclave that would reflect the broader interests of humanity rather than the narrow agenda of elite industrial powers.
The writer is president of the American Council on Germany and senior adviser with McLarty Associates. He writes in a personal capacity. FT Syndication Service