06:12 am
Is This Any Way To Run A Planet?
By sunset today, the world will have seen an exhausting four G-8/G-20 global summits within just 10 months: November 2008 in Washington, DC; April 2009 in London; July 2009 in Italy; and now the Pittsburgh gathering. And what do we have to show for it?
There is certainly a case to be made that, over the last year, these world leaders formed a “crisis committee” which displayed a surprising amount of flexibility in dealing with the global financial collapse. I will leave it for others to grade that performance, but of course, there is no way to know what would have happened without these interventions.
As the dust settles on this whirlwind of activity, however, it is past time to ask: Is this any way to run a planet?
The United Nations received more attention than usual this week as it hosted Barack Obama for his first speech and for his role chairing a Security Council meeting on nuclear issues. But again, coverage and commentary was mostly consumed with the presence of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Muammar Qaddafi. The flaws of the UN, namely giving prominence to rogue leaders, were more salient than its ability to solve global problems.
The G-20 was far more the focus of serious discussions and an agenda relevant to lives around the world. And now we are seeing the first stages of agreement on how these high level summits should play out in the future.
There are really two major issues which need to be addressed sooner rather than later.
First, who will sit at the table? The G-8 is too narrow and too homogenous (and too void of China) to be taken seriously any longer as the world’s boardroom. The G-20, by contrast, represents every region of the world and includes 80% of the world’s population and economy. Maybe 20 is not the magical number for the new global summit regime, but the ultimate membership number will be far closer to 20 than to 8. And countries who find themselves at this top level table should understand and take seriously the role they have in looking out for global, rather than merely national, interests. My friend Alan Alexandroff explains the relevant issues.
And second, what should this new G group do? I believe a group this powerful should not waste their time on anything less than the most pressing problems facing the planet. And from among those they should tackle only the most intractable. Problems which rise to the G level should be those which can’t be solved without heads-of-state leadership and direction. And this includes economic issues, security issues, and more. My colleague David Shorr explains the level of expectation… and accountability… we should apply to the G summits.
The new G arrangements being discussed in Pittsburgh could be a step in the right direction. In the end, public pressure will be vital to get the G reform we really need. All of us should raise our expectations of these leaders, remind them of their responsibilities, and hold them accountable for the commitments they make.