Make G20-plus transparent
0 Comment(s)
Print
E-mail
China Daily, November 1, 2011
Had regional organizations chosen the path of resistance, their wait would have been long. The Stiglitz Commission appointed by the United Nations has recommended the involvement of the UN. But a UN-ization of G20 is perhaps not a good idea because of the trade-off between inclusiveness and effectiveness. Besides, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, who now participates in the G20 summits, has endorsed that the two institutions are different and complementary.
There has also been a suggestion for creating a Global Economic Council, comprising country constituencies modeled on the lines of the IMF board after the reform of the IMF's voting power. But governance reform at IMF proceeds at a glacial pace.
At the Seoul summit last November, the G20 took an important step toward institutionalizing the previous practice of ad hoc invitations. The declaration said: "We reached broad agreement on a set of principles for non-member invitations to summits, including that we will invite no more than five non-member invitees, of which at least two will be from Africa." The G20 has now become G20+5.
While the formalization of membership of two regional organizations from Africa is appropriate because the entire continent had only one representative (South Africa), how about membership of other regional organizations? Given that at least two will now be from Africa and given Spain's "permanent guest" membership, it means that they have to compete for at most two seats and the system of ad hoc invitations will continue for them.
This decision would surely have disappointed ASEAN which has attended all summits, 3G which has been invited since the Seoul summit; GCC which has been invited to the Cannes summit this year, and any other regional groupings aspiring for G20 membership.
The Cannes summit on Thursday and Friday should complete the institutional reform process begun in Seoul. The shift from an ad hoc system to the "G20 Plus" is good, now it should be made more transparent.
First, just as the Netherlands is no longer a guest member, Spain should be requested to give up its "permanent guest" status. Spain gained entry into G20 with the support of France and then consolidated its position when it took up the EU presidency. Now there is no clear rationale for its membership. Moreover, Europe is over-represented.
Second, G20 should categorically announce that the five regional organizations to participate in its future summits would be the AU, NEPAD, ASEAN, 3G and GCC.
The guessing game of who will or will not be invited should end. Full membership of these five regional organizations should be formalized in Cannes. These actions will greatly enhance the "input" legitimacy of G20.
In return, these five regional organizations should strengthen their outreach programs with their constituencies and represent them effectively at the G20 high table. Even with the above reforms, many countries would be left out of G20. For them, a system of indirect participation should be considered. For example, South Africa has set up a Committee of Ten (C10) finance ministers and central bank governors from around Africa to support its participation in G20. Clearly, the time has come for a new economic architecture that the whole world can embrace.
