Jim Hoagland wants to “blow up” the G-8 and replace it with a G-3:
Predictable suggestions that this body be expanded to a G-13 or a G-20 go in the absolute wrong direction. More expansion will destroy any opportunity for informal, effective consultation by world leaders. They will be talking for the press releases, not for each other. Such proposals should be put forward only as cover for a more sensible proposition: The United States, the European Union and Japan should quietly form a G-3 that would operate in the shadows of the much larger talk shop.
Oh boy would that be a good idea incredibly stupid thing to do: alienate everybody except Japan, the one country without the capacity to help us militarily.
The French, Brits, and Germans would be angry because their three votes would be reduced to one, not to mention the fact that the EU would be represented by whichever country happens to hold the Presidency (right now, that would be France, but come January it would be the Czech Republic, whose economy currently ranks somewhere between 31st and 40th largest, depending on your source).
The Russians, who already disdain us (as we do them), would get even madder.
The Chinese, Spanish, Brazilians, Indians, and Koreans would have brand new reasons to be annoyed with the arrogance of our foreign policy.
The Canadians and Italians would be upset at being kicked out of the one club where they are somewhat relevant. And of course, we would look like the big bully once again.
I’m no fan of the G-8. I think it’s the wrong grouping for the wrong reasons. I agree with Hoagland that it’s not a very useful construct. Every two years these (mostly) guys get together and set out an ambitious agenda on a given problem or set of problems, which they then trumpet as a breakthrough. Two years ago, it was Africa, debt, and development (thanks largely to Bono and Blair). This time, it’s (again) climate change and the rapid rise in commodity prices. But if the past is prologue, they’ll negotiate until the last minute, issue a communique, and then… go home. Little else ever comes of these “breakthroughs.” And that doesn’t even get to the fact that the host country has to establish a miniature police state to make the event happen.
Part of the problem, as Hoagland notes, is that the G-8 really doesn’t have a clear definition of membership. That is in part a consequence of the dumb decision to admit Russia in the post-Cold-War-end-of-history euphoria of the 1990s (I would not be the first to call this one of Clinton’s dumber ideas). But it also is a product of the fact that the G-8 (with that one exception) has remained a static body while the world has changed.
So what is the G-8? To put it in Jim Collins’ Good to Great terms, what is its hedgehog concept? Is it a gathering of the world’s largest economies? If so, what’s Russia doing there? Is it the world’s largest democratic economies? Again, Russia disproves that. Furthermore, Spain (which by some (but not all) accounts has surpassed Canada in terms of nominal GDP), India, and Korea have just as much right to a place at the table as the Canadians.
I also have a hard time understanding why China is excluded when Russia remains at the table. It’s either the world’s biggest economies or it’s the world’s biggest democratic economies. Right now it’s a ridiculous hybrid.
Instead of maintaining the status quo or arbitrarily growing the club to include/exclude certain countries, why not draw a line that gives countries aspiring to membership a clearly delineated criteria for membership? From now on, The G-xx will include
- only those economies whose annual GDP is equal to US$1 million or greater;
- only those democratic economies whose annual GDP is equal to US$1 million or greater; or
- some other equally arbitrary criteria that is clear to outsiders.
Doing this might create incentives for economic growth and perhaps even democratic governance.
Of course, the problem is deciding whose standard to use. If we were to use the first criteria listed above, would the membership be ten (using World Bank numbers) or twelve (using those of the IMF)? That explains one of the real reasons the group hasn’t changed: everyone is terrified of making somebody else angry.
I recognize none of what I’m proposing is new: as Hoagland notes, there are numerous proposals to expand the group to a G-13 and even a G-20. But instead of coming up with a bad idea to fill a column, let’s acknowledge the truth of the matter: the time has come to revise G-8’s mission statement or abolish it altogether.
Of course, the chances of this happening are almost infinitesimal — if it takes these guys months to negotiate a statement on debt relief, imagine how long this project would take?
Related posts
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=c6cb9ef0-7977-43e0-97f4-dc0594ec624e)
Loading ...