'THE G8 is no longer enough to solve many of the problems." This perceptive remark by German chancellor Angela Merkel at the conclusion of the Group of Eight industrialised countries summit in Hokkaido yesterday goes to the heart of its world leadership role.
Its agenda includes the most pressing issues facing humanity, but the G8 has neither the capacity nor the will to tackle them effectively. Its roles in policy formulation and co-ordination are not accepted as legitimate by other major players which must be involved in tackling these issues.
China, India and other members of the supplementary group attending the summit on its final day demand the G8 be expanded to include them, in what would amount to a major change in the pattern of international governance. This is resisted by the US and Japan especially, but supported by Germany and other states. These demands will grow rapidly and are likely to reach a critical stage before long, making the G8 increasingly ineffective and irrelevant. Without involving emerging political and economic powers its calls for action on climate change, food and energy shortages and development aid for Africa lack inclusivity and legitimacy.
So it proved yesterday, especially on climate change. China and India demanded that the rich world should take the lead, since they created the problem, they emit more greenhouse gases than anyone else and they can afford to take action. This is the traditional stance of the developing world on global warming, and it has continuing validity. At this G8 meeting it was argued that getting the US to go along with a commitment to cut greenhouse gases by 50 per cent by 2050 is a breakthrough; but confusion about whether the starting date is 1990 or 2009 illustrates the difficulties involved, since that would make an estimated 20 per cent difference.
In truth the G8 is not the right forum to negotiate climate change, the parameters of which have been already laid down and will be concluded in Copenhagen next summer. This is not to say the G8, or some larger and reformulated functional equivalent such as a group of 20 states, is not a necessary and useful as a way for political leaders to get to know one another, broker a common approach to major issues and agree to seek endorsement elsewhere for that. Whether on global warming, energy and food supply and pricing, or development aid programmes, international action is needed based on a common analysis by the states most involved in such problems and most able to take action on them.
A crucial question remains how to engineer such change and render it more accountable. If powerful emerging states like China, India, Russia, Brazil, Indonesia and Mexico, for example, refuse to accept the lead given by existing G8 members and their associates, it will become increasingly difficult to find a consensus on major politico-economic issues at world level. It should be in the interests of all concerned to prevent this. Lobbying on aid levels has already shown over the last two years that world public opinion can also be mobilised effectively for common goals.