September 14, 2009
Posted by David Shorr
In foreign policy wonk vernacular, "arguing over the shape of the table" is basically the same as "fiddling while Rome burns" -- a reference to Vietnamese peace talks that, for the longest time, were consumed with matters of protocol. As world leaders head towards Pittsburgh for a G-20 summit next week, I'd argue that the shape of the table for future summits really needs to be sorted out, and soon. Over on TPM Cafe, I recently posted a piece together with my Canadian colleagues Alan Alexandroff and Andy Cooper of Centre for International Governance Innovation. We're also holding a pre-Pittsburgh briefing tomorrow morning at the National Press Club (coffee/danish at 8:30; briefing at 9), but for those who can't make it, let me offer a few added points.
Recent global power shifts have left the G-8 leading industrialized nations without the influence they once had, and for years they have tried different ways to engage rising global and regional powers. Instead of pulling these key players into intensified cooperation, though, this leaves a great deal of ambiguity and ambivalence. The last G-8 summit in Italy convened four different groupings of various sizes. Does that kind of shape-shifting summitry offer leaders a chance to use leader-to-leader face time to craft major policy steps? The Pittsburgh G-20 meeting will be the fourth G summit in less than a year. Is that a sustainable diplomatic tempo?
The reason for all this improvisation is clear. The formal responsibility for deciding who takes part in G summits is the government hosting the meeting. Structurally, these meetings are no different from a party for which the host draws up the guest list. Which leaves one of the world's most important diplomatic forums driven by the fear of offending anyone.
Given the agenda that beckons -- climate change, nuclear nonproliferation, economic stagnation -- it's time to stop improvising and procrastinating. We need summit reform that establishes a new pattern for cooperation with a) set membership (between 13-20 nations, we call it 'G-X') and b) a broad agenda, including but not limited to the global economy. Here are four guidelines for reform:
Emphasize action. All too often, diplomacy is the art of papering over differences and creating the appearance of action. The leaders at these summits have a unique ability to change policy, reach compromise, and support action. Let's use it.
Overcome differences. The agenda of the G-X should be comprised of issues fraught by policy and priority differences and needing high-level impetus. It's not that serious divisions among pivotal states will suddenly dissolve, but a diplomatic focal point would at least provide a proper forum and set of expectations.
Minimize distractions. Focusing a G-X on critical and sensitive issues will be a discipline. Please, no more sprawling communiques that say something about everything.
Maximizing consultations. Just as the US depends on others to achieve any of its major goals, a limited grouping of countries like the G-X won't be able to impose its will. But the need for a more consensual style of international leadership doesn't negate the basic need for leadership. The key will be extensive consultation and consensus-building through other multilateral and bilateral channels.
Maximizing consultations. Just as the US depends on others to achieve any of its major goals, a limited grouping of countries like the G-X won't be able to impose its will. But the need for a more consensual style of international leadership doesn't negate the basic need for leadership. The key will be extensive consultation and consensus-building through other multilateral and bilateral channels.
I hope we see some of you at the National Press Club tomorrow morning.
Source: http://www.democracyarsenal.org/
.
