Editorials

Op-Ed Contributors

Chinese Press

Columnists

LETTERS

A group depends on what leaders make of it

By Cai Hong (China Daily)
Updated: 2009-07-09 07:45

From England's Lord Palmerston in the 19th century to France's Charles de Gaulle in the 20th, statesmen have warned that countries have no friends, only interests. Times change, or at least language does. Today the talk is all about which G number you belong to.

Theoretically, G is short for group. Navigating international summits used to be easy: there was the unaccountable group of rich nations called the G7, which first met in France in 1975, and there was the "third world", represented by the G77 (which first met in Algiers in 1967).

Today leaders of the countries in the two worlds put their heads frequently together at G-whatever summits.

The global financial and economic crisis, unprecedented in its magnitude and severity, requires unprecedented, globally coordinated policy responses. To this end, the leaders of the G20 countries, not only the G7/8 leaders, but also leaders from major emerging economies, have met twice - first in Washington DC last November and then in London in April this year.

Transformation in the world order has traditionally followed conflict among states. During the last decade, however, large, emerging economies began to play increasingly significant and active roles in the global arena. This recalibration of authority has occurred without conflict through a process of skillful diplomacy practiced by rising powers.

Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRIC) have been at the forefront of this activity.

Wu Jianmin, president of China Foreign Affairs University, said on the sidelines of a global meeting on a nuclear-free world in Washington DC recently: "China's rise is not to smash the existing international order because China (itself) has benefited from it. We call for solutions and reforms in the existing order but we don't need revolutionary change."

He conceded that China does not possess the quality to lead the world, even though its role is "indispensable" today in resolving major international issues.

A recent notable case of engaging the emerging economic powers started at the 2007 G8 Summit of industrialized nations in Heiligendamma, Germany. Brazil, India, China, South Africa and Mexico, or B(R)ICSAM, were invited to participate in an official-level, two-year outreach dialogue on substantive issues, including innovation, investment, development assistance and energy policy.

At the head of the pack of B(R)ICSAM countries is China, the world's most populous nation. It has enjoyed great economic growth, succeeded in alleviating poverty and achieved a considerable lot in international trade. Diplomatically, it is very active in trade deals, regional initiatives, cultural relations and public affairs.

The per capita income in other B(R)ICSAM countries' is still low and will remain much lower than in the industrialized nations.

Although some suggest that China has created a new form of capitalism, its rural-urban divide still upholds its identity as a developing country.

Scholars recommend that the global order of the 21st century must give emerging economies the pride of place. A Brookings survey by Colin Bradford reveals that 63 percent of experts and officials calling for a reform in the global order favor the G8+5 model. The so-called "Outreach 5" has already been included in the G8 discussions on climate change, clean energy and sustainable development.

What are still termed "developing" countries now have accounted for 30-40 percent of the world's GDP growth over the past five to seven years and have the most dynamic economies. With their large foreign-exchange reserves, these once impoverished countries are buying more and more US Treasuries and, in a way, sustaining the US economy.

The B(R)ICSAM countries are among the largest economies in the world. The economies of Brazil and Russia are almost equal to Britain's and France's and larger than Italy's, Mexico's is larger than Canada's, China's is second only to the US', and India's follows Japan's.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown have called for the G8 to be expanded into a G13, making emerging powers full partners.

The "G8+5 process" was considered a test to see whether the winners of the early 21st century would be willing to comply with the rules of the game of Western leadership.

Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso has said the importance of engaging emerging economies to solve global problems is rapidly increasing. The G8+5 process has provided a good opportunity to enhance a sense of co-responsibility among the participating countries. "Through efforts such as this, emerging economies will work toward common perspectives and purposes and share responsibility with the G8," Aso has said in The G8 2009: From La Maddalena to L'Aquila, a book released before the 2009 G8 Summit.

It is unfair to ask the developing world to share the responsibility without listening to its views on how to address global issues.

Some argue that the Washington G20 Summit marked a "historic power shift". But it is still too early to announce such a shift. Neither through the "G8+5" process nor at the G20 meeting can the developing countries influence the agenda or outcome of the G8. To ensure their voices are heard loud and clear, the "plus 5" developing nations issued their own communiqu for the first time after the G8 summit in 2008.

The July 8-10 L'Aquila G8 summit will deal with the global economic recovery, climate change, Africa's development and international political issues related to peace and security.

Italy has invited 39 countries and organizations, which account for 90 percent of the world economy, to the summit to make the G8 more relevant.

At the declaratory level, all state officials have been careful to say that the G8 and the G20 are not in competition. Leaders of the G20 countries will gather again for the Barack Obama-hosted G20 forum in Pittsburg in September. World leaders today get more chances to know and understand each other. And the place of G8 or G20 in the world order depends on what they make of the chances and the groups.

(China Daily 07/09/2009 page9)