Tags:
Journalism of Courage
It is a sad fact that not enough multilateral organisations work the way they are supposed to. They have problems,variously,of inclusiveness,legitimacy and effectiveness. Over the past two years,however,the G-20 has demonstrated that it has partially overcome these hurdles,aiding in international economic coordination more efficiently than most expected. During the Seoul meeting of G-20 heads of government on November 11 and 12,however,the body will have a few decisions to make,some of which could determine whether it continues to be as useful or dwindles,as did the G-33 and the G-22 before it,into irrelevance. The crucial question that leaders at Seoul will face is determining the forums own future direction. From its first meeting,in Washington,the primary role of the G-20 has been as a place where attempts to contain the global crisis are hammered out. It has succeeded in that to the extent that any multilateral system could: there has not,for example,been a sovereign debt crisis,and till the last meeting in Toronto,the groups members also managed a useful degree of fiscal coordination. Global trade has not collapsed either,as many feared it would as short-term lending for international commerce dried up. A crucial source of continued legitimacy is the assurance that other commitments that have been made are followed up on. In particular,it should not lose focus on the task of keeping the international monetary system stable. Yet that will not be enough. Remaining a body with a mandate little beyond reacting to an increasingly distant crisis will condemn it to inevitable irrelevance. To that end the summits Korean hosts have declared that development should also be a focus for this meeting. But spreading the G-20s efforts too thin will be an equally certain way of destroying its utility and effectiveness. The limits of coordination in a deliberative international body were already visible at Toronto,where Europe and the United States differed on the size and length of a fiscal stimulus,for reasons of domestic politics,and no agreement was reached. Too much of that,and we will be in a world of meaningless post-summit statements,and multilateral summits useful only as a reason for bilateral meetings on the sidelines. The G-20 has to chart a middle path an expanded,but manageable mandate.
