When will the asymmetry in G20 agenda get a fix?
What would be the impression you’d get on G20 if you followed the G20 summit through the Turkish media alone. Imagine you’d never heard of it. Imagine you’re trying to figure it out for the first time by following the Turkish media. You may have thought that G20 was an organization company that brought leaders to Antalya for bilateral get-togethers. Or that it was a tea party event bringing together the leaders. But this simply demonstrates Turkey’s status in the face of the global agenda, to be frank.
Beyond all this, the G20 is in fact a platform with a rigid agenda. I say a rigid agenda because you need consensus to alter the agenda, whereas consensus is one of the biggest challenges at the G20. I believe that the current agenda of the G20 is afflicted with an asymmetry, which makes it harder for the G20 to become a relevant platform for the developing countries. I believe that after Turkey’s term in 2015, China’s presidency in 2016 and Germany’s in 2017 will be an important opportunity to fix the asymmetry in the agenda and hence render G20 a relevant platform for the developing countries as well. Let me explain.
But first I’d like to make two points to counter comments in the vein of “what’s the G20 good for, it’s simply a tea party of the leaders anyway.” First, I believe that for the sustainability of the globalization process, it is extremely important for the leaders of prominent countries to meet, even without a specific agenda of any sort. And why? Politics is entirely personal. It is conducted based on relations at the personal level. The fact that world leaders develop personal acquaintance, spend time together, hear one another’s voice, look each other in the eye, must surely be a good thing for the future of the world. Let’s make that the first point. Second, I’d like to recite an anecdote involving the former prime minister of Canada, Paul Martin, acknowledged as the forefather of the G20. Paul Martin said at a recent meeting that the best meetings of the G20 summits were those without set agendas, where leaders would just chit-chat. What’s the idea? That chit-chat over coffee becomes all the more worthwhile when the interlocutors happen to be the leaders of the world. Let’s acknowledge that first.
Now let me move on to the G20 Antalya Summit. I think that this year’s summit was a great success for Turkey, and for three reasons:
First, Turkey emerged out of this summit without a blunder, proving that it is eligible to provide a perspective on the global agenda. It’s not as if we revolutionized the world, but we’ve demonstrated that we have the capacity to successfully manage the current agenda. This is a notable performance for a medium-sized country like Turkey. Let’s jot that down first.
Second, we have demonstrated to the entire world that we can make progress on the G20 agenda under Turkey’s presidency. What does that mean? Throughout 2015, Turkey has successfully managed the teams brought together under international organizations like the World Bank, the OECD and the IMF for the G29. In terms of taxation, the regulation intended to prevent companies from diverting revenues to tax havens was completed and added to the resolutions. The balance sheet optimization measures meant for international development banks to allocate more resources to infrastructure projects has been completed. Furthermore, regarding the additional 2% growth target in 5 years, a goal set by the G20 under the Brisbane Action Plan last year, an accountability report was produced to monitor whether countries took the measures that they had pledged. Turkey has in a way taken a step for the monitoring of the practice.
Third, Turkey has taken the initial steps to remedy the asymmetry in the G20 agenda under the inclusiveness banner.
What’s the asymmetry of the G20 agenda about? The G20 agenda initially comprised of a single issue. The goal, after the global crisis, was to make the international system of finance operational again, to prevent the interruption of trade flows, and in a sense, to preserve the gains of globalization. The G20 was set up with these goals in mind following the 1997 crisis as a venue for finance ministers and central bank governors. Then, after another financial crisis, the 2008 American crisis, it transformed into a summit with the participation of leaders. Just as the tongue seeks out an achy tooth, the G20 always focused on the operability of the global financial system at the outset. After 2010, development issues became integrated to the global agenda under the name the Sherpa track. Hence, the agenda has got two fundamental tracks: The finance track and the Sherpa track. The Sherpa track was just as complicated as the finance track was clear and well-structured. The Sherpa track was as significant to developing countries as the finance track was for the developed counterparts. Hence, an asymmetry emerged between these two tracks. Turkey started to underscore that asymmetry for the first time this year. The initiatives under the inclusiveness topic were critical in this sense. The G20 had hitherto been important and relevant for developed countries and multinational companies. It had to become important and relevant for developing countries and the SMEs from now on.
I believe that this balancing process will continue under the presidencies of China and Germany as well. Then, in 2018, India will most likely assume the presidency. And why is that?
The Ankara-Sinai-Beirut-Paris attacks suggest that the G20 has to be transformed into a more relevant platform for the developing countries from now on. This is one side of the coin. The other is that the Antalya summit coincided to a critical time frame for the sustainable development schedule. The Sustainable Development Goals (SGD) framework was ratified at the United Nations General Assembly in late September. A new climate agreement is expected to emerge out of the Climate Change Conference due in Paris in a few weeks. The task then will be to convert these into operational policy proposals. Hence, the SDG agenda will in fact be the Sherpa track of the G20. Within the framework of the SDGs, it will in fact become possible to compensate for the costs to be borne by developing countries that will cut down on their growth targets as they cut down on carbon emissions, through the diffusion of new technologies that bring carbon emissions down and productivity up. Within this framework, international cooperation mechanisms for the diffusion of new technologies will come onto the agenda. I believe that the trade-off arrangement that came back on the agenda at the Antalya summit now happens to make sense.
Was the G20 Antalya Summit overshadowed by the terrorist attack in Paris? No, it wasn’t. In my opinion, the Paris attack, a contemporary affair, strengthened the efforts already underway for the fortification of the development agenda of the G20. The G20 agenda should not be expected to shift with current developments in the first place.
