Promoting Canada's Interests: A New G7, G20 and G35

[Edward Campbell]

I have been going on and on for a long time (too bloody long, some will say) about policy and Canada’s vital interests. I will not bore you further with detailed explanations, I think we can sum up our interests in two words: Peace and Prosperity – Peace is more than just the absence of war and Prosperity is more than just a steady job for 95% of employable Canadians – and one of the main ways we, a relatively “weak” nation, go about securing both is by promoting multilateralism.

By any fair and sensible measure Canada was, circa 2000, one of the world’s Top 10 nations. We can neither expect nor even hope to sustain that position in the 21st century but for as long as most of you are alive, and likely for longer, we are likely to be in the top 10% - again by any fair and reasonable measure.

We, Canada – the Finance Minister Paul Martin, actually – founded the G20 and we are one of its charter members. It, the G20, is just one group in the international the smörgåsbord of groups – great and small – which we can and should use to protect and promote our vital interests.

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from yesterday’s Globe and Mail is an opinion piece, by Gordon Smith and Barry Carin that deals with the G8 vs the G20:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090329.wcocanada30/BNStory/specialComment/home

Canada's interest is the G20, not the G8

GORDON SMITH AND BARRY CARIN

From Monday's Globe and Mail
March 30, 2009 at 12:53 AM EDT

Mad magazine's Alfred E. Neuman famously asked, “What, me worry?” And why worry about Canada's position in the world, its vulnerable interests to protect and advance? After all, Canada will play host to the 2010 Group of Eight summit, a major happening.

So what's the problem? It's that the G8 is on life support and may be practically irrelevant by then.

The G8 began life so like-minded developed countries could co-ordinate economic policies. As it developed, it took on a much broader global agenda. Bill Clinton invited Moscow to join the club, significantly to encourage Russia to become a democracy.

But amid the current global economic crisis, it was leaders of the Group of 20, not the G8, who decided to hold an emergency meeting. Can one imagine having a discussion on today's international financial situation without China?


Last year, George W. Bush called for a meeting of the leaders of the more inclusive G20 group, which previously had met at the finance ministers' level, and the second G20 summit will open on Thursday in London. This puts the G8 in question. The G8's host for 2009, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, has invited G20 leaders to Sardinia for only part of the meeting; non-G8 countries will inevitably see this as second-class treatment. There is likely to be another G20 this fall, and the South Koreans will play host to a summit-level meeting when they replace Britain in 2010 as G20 chair. The G8 host is in an awkward position.

Having a G20 summit at the level of leaders is a Canadian idea that would have happened five years ago if not for the United States. Canada is fortunate to be part of the G20. If there were a clean slate and a calculus made as to the most important eight countries, Canada would not be in the room. Forbes magazine has advocated reconstituting the G8, dropping Canada and Italy, and adding India and China. A Goldman Sachs paper has advised that even “the G20 … will need to be consolidated into a smaller group to be more effective. We propose the formation of a G4, within a broader G14.”

If objective criteria were used to select the 20 most important countries in the world, Canada would probably not make the cut. For example, it just scrapes in today on a list of 20 countries having at least 2 per cent of global GDP or population, but it certainly will not in 2020. Unfortunately for Canada, the criterion will not be land mass. It is perhaps of note that the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office has already consigned Canada to the second tier in its communications strategy for the London summit.

There are interesting signs of the G20's agenda broadening. The point has been made that climate change and energy security must be dealt with as part of economic recovery. Developing countries insist that issues such as agricultural subsidies, investment and intellectual property need to be on the G20 agenda. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has hinted at a “grand bargain” covering a breadth of issues. Rules will be initiated by the G20 summit; international institutions' mandates will be reformed and new arrangements created. Should a major political crisis coincide with a G20 leaders' meeting (as Bosnia did in 1995 and the London bombings did in 2005), a common stand will be discussed.

Why do we have to be at the summit table? The cold reality is that the globalized world is divided into rule-makers and rule-takers – and the rules matter, especially in the trade/protectionism and climate/energy areas. If Canada is not present, our interests will be ignored.

The host of a summit is in a privileged position. Customarily, the host chooses to focus on a particular issue. This is a rare opportunity for Canada, given the lengthy rotation of hosts a G20 generates. Not being at the future summit table would relegate us to becoming rule-takers.

Italy is stumbling into its G8 summit. Canada's interests lie in making the G20 thesummit that matters. Our government should prepare the ground this week in London and transform next year's Canadian G8 summit into a Canadian G20 summit. Then Canada can continue to play a central role in reshaping global rules and institutions.

Gordon Smith and Barry Carin are executive director and associate director at the Centre for Global Studies, University of Victoria. They are also fellows at the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute and were on Jean Chrétien's G8 summit team in the 1990s.

One of the things we are should be trying to do in our international relations is to increase the strength of our “voice’ in global affairs. That’s one of the main reasons we are in Afghanistan. We have no really strong links to that region and our interests in Afghanistan’s economy or even of its “human development” (beyond a well founded fear of the consequences of “tolerating” medieval Islamic societies) are minimal. But playing a major role in ISAF enhances our reputation amongst the “great” powers and gives us a “better” seat at some tables. But, as the UK’s decision to relegate us to the political B list at this week’s G20 meeting demonstrates, we are not a major league player – Triple A, surely, to keep a baseball analogy going, but not in the big leagues.

Who is in the majors? I made a guesstimate (it’s far too weak to call it an analysis) of who should be in the world’s “economic management” team. I selected 50 nations: the “top” 30± were selected from the top nations by either or both of GDP per capita – which is one fair measure of productivity, and nominal GDP – which is one fair measure of national wealth and economic power. The other 15± were added as “near misses” or to provide some regional balance (mostly to ensure Africa, South America and large Islamic countries are represented.

I think the G20 is too large to be an effective “steering group” and too small to be a broadly representative “consultative group.” Therefore I propose that Canada should try to reform the G20 by:

1. Reshaping the current G8 into a new G7 as follows:

Current Proposed
USA USA )
Japan Japan )
German Germany )
UK   UK     ) These seven are the world’s “major league” players
Russia China )
France India )
Italy   Brazil )
Canada

2. Expanding the G20 into a new G35 Consultative Group with three sub groups:

(1) The new G7 Core (steering) Group,

(2) A new G2 Planning Group, and

(3) The full G35 Consultative Group.

My G20 varies from the current as follows:

Current Proposed

Argentina   Argentina
Australia   Australia
Brazil     Brazil
Canada   Canada
China     China
EU             Netherlands
France     France
Germany     Germany
India       India
Indonesia   Indonesia
Italy       Italy
Japan         Japan
Mexico          Chile
Russia         Russia
Saudi Arabia Singapore
South Africa South Africa
South Korea South Korea
Turkey     Turkey
UK           UK
USA         USA

I think I am certain that it is wrong to give the EU “status” unless the same is given to e.g. ASEAN,  Mercosur, NAFTA and so on. All those groups, and others, shoul have observer status at various fora.

My G7, G20 and G35 are a fair and balanced set of “teams” that ought to be able to guide the global economy for the first half of this century. There is a realistically important role for Canada in this superstructure and we would, likely, gain some prestige by volunteering ourselves for “demotion to the second division” (a football analogy, now) in order to implement a better “league” structure.


Edit: analysis spreadsheet not attached.

 

[chanman]

Do you already have a list of the 15 remaining G35 countries as well? 

I also wonder at what criteria determines that the UK stays while France goes.  Population, GDP, demographics, both countries are within spitting distance of each other from what I can see.  Additionally, I imagine France might have a better shot at selling policies to francophone ex-colonies than your current proposed G7 members.

 

[tomahawk6]

Have you ever seen a meeting with 20 people ever accomplish anything ? Expanding the group to 35 just makes decisionmaking that much harder. I liked the G7 a much smaller group where you have a shot at solving problems.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail, is an interesting article about a grand strategy dilemma with which Prime Minister Harper must grapple:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/harper-has-key-role-in-shaping-g8s-future/article1297761/

Harper has key role in shaping G8’s future
As host of next year's meeting, Prime Minister will have a chance to influence the composition of geopolitical summits to come

Kevin Carmichael

Pittsburgh
Wednesday, Sep. 23, 2009

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is facing a decision that could fundamentally change the ordering of global affairs and determine Canada's future role on the international stage.

Away from the more pressing concern of nurturing a fragile economic recovery, governments in the Group of 20 nations, whose leaders reconvene in Pittsburgh this week for the third time in less than a year, are engaged in a debate about whether the G20 will remain the global economy's steering committee once the financial crisis has finally passed.

By historical accident, Mr. Harper finds himself in a position to play a pivotal role in determining the outcome.

As host of next year's meeting of Group of Eight wealthy countries, Mr. Harper must choose whether to expand the summit to include India and other developing countries, or exclude those nations in favour of the clubbier and less chaotic G8 structure.

The stakes are high.

For the economists who believe the crisis could have been avoided if countries such as the United States and China trusted more in each other, finding the right balance between richer countries and emerging powers is seen as vital to bringing longer-term stability to the global economy.

Meanwhile, Mr. Harper must also weigh a more parochial question: Is Canada's place in this future global order secure? As the geopolitical sands shift, relatively smaller powers like Canada aren't assured a place at the table, academic observers and former officials say.

By hosting another G20 summit next year, Mr. Harper could create momentum for a means of overseeing the global affairs at which Canada has a firm place, undermining persistent arguments that global economic, environmental and security matters are better managed by achieving consensus among major powers such as the U.S., China, Japan, India and the bigger European countries.

“Canada now has to make a very calculated and difficult decision about what it wants to do,” Andres Rozental, a senior fellow at the Washington-based Brookings Institution and a former Mexican deputy foreign minister, said in an interview from London. “Canada has a large stake in this issue. In the new architecture, Canada, Italy and some other countries might fall by the wayside.”

Mr. Harper hasn't yet stated how he intends to approach the issue.

The G20 – conceived after the Asian financial crisis of the late 1990s as a place for finance ministers and central bank governors to exchange notes on the global economy – lacks the deep roots of the G8 and therefore could be unwound if the political will to hold it together recedes, said Andrew Cooper, a distinguished fellow at the Waterloo, Ont.-based Centre for International Governance Innovation.

Leaders of the G20, which includes 19 countries ranging from Argentina to Germany to Saudi Arabia, plus the European Union, met for the first time in November in Washington at the invitation of former president George W. Bush.

The decision to convene the G20 was mainly one of convenience as the structure already existed.

But unlike the financial crises that swept through emerging markets in the later part of the last decade, G20 members such as Argentina and Indonesia had little to do with the latest financial meltdown.

That leaves the door open to configuring a new group, or proceeding with the status quo.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy said in August that he will convene what he called a G14 when France takes over from Canada as G8 host in 2011.

Mr. Sarkozy's group would include the G8 countries of the U.S., Japan, Germany, Britain, France, Italy, Russia and Canada, along with China, India, Brazil, Mexico, South Africa and Egypt.

Pierre Pettigrew, who served as trade and foreign affairs minister in the Liberal cabinets of Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin, said there remains an argument in diplomatic circles that the G8 should be shrunk rather than enlarged.

The reasoning for this is that groups as large as the G20 are unworkable because there are too many interests at the table to achieve consensus.

Since China's gross domestic product has surpassed those of every G8 member with the exception of the U.S. and Japan, most experts say it is now inconceivable to make decisions on the world economy without the Chinese government at the table. For those who support smaller groupings, that means forcing the European countries to speak with one voice and cutting countries such as Canada and Australia out of the discussion.

“It is a very critical moment for Canada,” Mr. Pettigrew said. “We have to make sure we are there in that grouping, whatever it is. There are some scenarios in which we aren't.”

It is, generally, diplomatically simpler to expand groups, à la Sarkozy’s G14, rather than to contract them but, in this case, shrinking the G8 to the sort of G7 I proposed above, is smarter.

But one cannot just give e.g. Canada and Italy the boot – hence my new G20, which could be a G15, for example, by deleting, just for example, Argentina, Indonesia, Netherlands, Singapore and Turkey. But that would dilute the “broadly representative” nature that I think is essential if the G20 is to be an effective advisory body for the G7.

My personal inclination is to move the UK and Brazil out of the proposed G7, making it a more manageable, more effective G5, and leaving the G20 as is, still including Brazil and the Brits.

The G35 would include 15 smaller economies from Africa (3 members), East/South Asia/Pacific (4 members), Europe (2 members), Middle East/West Asia (3 members) and Latin America/Caribbean (3 members).

I wish Harper would play a strategic leadership role by shrinking the G8 to a G5 and, simultaneously, creating a revised G20 advisory group, preempting Sarkozy.

I also wish (and I think this is more “achievable”) he would invite ASEAN, NAFTA and so on to attend and participate to balance the EU – de facto creating yet another sub-group.

I suspect that Harper is being advised to invite Brazil, China and India to participate in all discussions, creating, de facto a G11 that Sarkozy can then expand into a G14 if he wishes.

I thnink that eventually, when we have a G14 and a G20, cooler heads will prevail and we will get something like a G5, G20 and G35.

Prime Minister Harper’s strategic challenge is to preserve Canada’s influence as we are, roughly, elbowed aside by bigger players. We have, slowly but surely, slipped our of the global “Top 10” (we haven’t slipped as much as we have been passed) but we are, firmly, in the “Top 10%” and we are likely to remain there for a long, long time. We need a place at the table, and the world needs us at the table – the right place, a respected place, at the right table, but it might not be at the head table any more.

 

[a_majoor]

Many of these arguments have been brought up in the past in other threads, and I will re raise an objection to the various "G" groups; do the mambers share common interests with Canada?

Even the G-8 is not truely representative of our interests, outside of the obvious inclusion of Russia. Canada was only invited in the first place by the United States, which wanted a North American couterweight to the heavily Eurocentric composition of the initial group. Then, as now, Canada did not have the military, political or economic clout to be a member on her own merits (indeed, as Edward has pointed out, we have been passed by other, more dynamic economies).

I would think that for many purposes "tiger teams" of like minded nations can rapidly assemble for particular tasks (the US, Australia and Japan put together an outstanding response to the Tsunami), and like minded groupings like the putative "Anglosphere" or a "Concert of Democracies" would be fare more representative and effective places to promote and cultivate our interests.