G Whiz Posted by David Shorr

As Heather points out, there is a more basic set of diplomatic issues beyond the global economic matters at hand. Essentially, the geometry of 21st Century collective action. For years there has been a foreign policy cottage industry that focuses on 'the Gs' in their various numbers and permutations, and for good reason. I argued in Wednesday's Des Moines Register that the regular high-level meetings and global composition of these forums makes them an alluring source of political will. The palpable need for mechanisms that bring together global and regional powers of different sorts only further piques the interest. [Further thoughts and a shameless plug for our forthcoming Stanley Foundation book are on our publisher's blog.]

A bit of background that many of our knowledgeable DA readers might skip. The more familiar and established Group of Eight industrialized powers plus Russia had already been groping around for years, searching for a good way to pull China, India, Brazil, South Africa, and Mexico into closer consultation. To some in the latter group, the attempt seemed half-hearted at best, and insulting at worst. But then with the global recession serving as a cattle prod, the G20 -- previously a creature of finance ministers -- has now convened its heads of state and government not once but twice in five months.

All of which raises very interesting questions about the geometric shape of diplomatic things to come. Will the G20 become the 'go-to' summit, where the real power elite go to meet and eat? Will it adopt the forward-leaning pattern of meeting twice a year? If so, what becomes of the G8? And what will the G20 -- or G13, or G16 (GX?) -- talk about? (Answers to these and other questions below the fold.)

The latest substantive contribution on these questions comes from the Center for American Progress, in their excellent Case for Leadership report (Nina Hachigian provides a Cliff Notes version in The Guardian). The CAP proposal contains many interesting ideas, such as a reset button for the membership every five years, with objective economic criteria for membership.

I'd take slight issue, though, with their recommendation that the G20 stay focused only on economic matters. I believe it's important for these summit meetings to deal with a wider range of issues. Even as urgent as the global economy is, such high-level attention is a precious commodity that must be dispersed more widely. The CAP report says the UN Security Council has greater expertise to deal, for instance, with peace and security issues, but I don't think that's the right way to look at the respective comparative advantages and division of labor. The Security Council is in year-round session -- and can thus deal with fast-moving crises -- and its decisions can carry the force of international law. But the G20 represents a unique aggregation of political heft that could be useful for many issues (though CAP makes a good point that some international health issues might be below their pay grade). We need the national leaders to do what only they can do: light a fire of urgency under certain policy areas or break a logjam on others.

There are compelling reasons for the G20 to focus mainly on the global economy, but does this need to be their exclusive focus? I wonder if the G20 could have a two-tiered agenda -- combining greater attention to economic affairs with a revolving menu of other issues that need high level attention, with the follow-through taking place in more specialized forums.

Comments

[Dan Kervick]

From Geoff Dyer via Brad DeLong, maybe it is the G2 we should be looking to.

[Don Bacon]

I don't doubt that the good people of Iowa, where the top current news story is "600 hogs die in fire in central Iowa", are deeply concerned about what becomes of the G8 or G20 social hours. Not.

[David Shorr]

You're right that high-level diplomacy isn't uppermost in the mind of the typical Iowan, but nor is it completely off the radar. Aside from a general awareness that this is an interdependent world, I think the public knows that significant power shifts have taken place and pose an important challenge. When I spoke at an inner city high school in Kansas City, MO recently, the students were fuzzy on many basics of international affairs or simple matters of civics, but they knew that we've borrowed a lot of money from China.

[Gustto Handbags]

You're right that high-level diplomacy isn't uppermost in the mind of the typical Iowan

[replica Bvlgari Rings]

You're right that high-level diplomacy isn't uppermost in the mind of the typical Iowan

[luxury watches]

I am so with you,rolex watch
luxury watch

[timberland boots]

I have a strong feeling that the mark-to-market, it still wouldn't have been the right thing to do.

[ghghg]

CHEAP rs gold
MY lotro gold
CHEAPEST aion gold

[molded rubber products]

plastic parts made by injection molding
printing in China
construction scaffolding

[cheap coach handbags]

http://www.zetinopvoetbal.nl/forum/index.php

[cheap coach bags]

Great comments! You are so nice, man! You never know how much i like'em!

[cheap coach purses]

Yes, that's cool. The device is amazing! Waiting for your next one!

[acekard]

The creation of the G20 in 1999 was seen as recognition of the new economic and political realities, but neither the Swiss nor the Dutch nor the Spanish were particularly happy at being excluded.