Opinion The G-Zero scenario
Differences at the G-20 summit suggest it may be every nation for itself now.
Differences at the G-20 summit suggest it may be every nation for itself now.
Back in 1999,when the G-20 replaced the G-8 and was formally constituted,the world was a far more secure place. The agenda for the 20 member states was focused on one ambition: the promotion of international financial stability. Following the latest summit in St Petersburg last week,it is safe to say that the seven meetings that took place between the heads of government yielded little. The G-20 met in the shadow of global financial instability and the threat of a possible strike on Syria,backed by only two of its members,the US and France. The rest,including summit host Russia,are either vehemently opposed to any military operation or will only support UN-sponsored action. While the latest compromise solution could stave off military action,differences regarding the global economic meltdown and the weapons needed to tackle it were also evident. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singhs stated objective was an orderly exit from the unconventional monetary policies being pursued by the developed world for the last few years. Its a case,clearly,of each member country looking after its individual interests rather than the greater global good. Even within the BRICS umbrella,Indias economic travails received scant support from Russia and China.
So,is the world in 2013 in the throes of what author and geopolitical analyst Ian Bremmer labelled the G-Zero? Last year,Bremmer argued in his book,Every Nation for Itself,that the world was facing a leadership vacuum,with the US in decline and China still struggling with economic uncertainty and disparity. Moreover,he believes that the diverse political and economic values of the G-20 have produced a global gridlock. His core argument is,given that so many challenges transcend borders,the need for international cooperation has never been greater,while,paradoxically,countries across the world are growing increasingly insular. The global leadership vacuum,he predicted,would provoke uncertainty,volatility,competition and,in some cases,open conflict.
Another widely discussed report,produced by Standard Chartered,concluded that the world had entered a new super-cycle in which traditional economic hierarchies were being upended. Ever since the financial crisis,the report stated,the US had lost the economic strength and the will to be the worlds policeman. The number of Americans,for example,who believe the US should mind its own business internationally has spiked to a level not seen since the 1950s. For many countries,this would seem like a relief from from Americas aggressive interventionism,but it has also helped create a stalemate on everything from global warming to international trade or action against Syria. That has the potential to radically affect future generations across the world,as countries become more inward-looking and adopt policies geared to domestic priorities,the opposite of the G-20 mandate.
What Bremmers geopolitical analysis showed was that just a generation ago,the then G-7 France,Germany,Italy,Japan,Britain,the US and Canada not only powered the global economy,it also,for better or for worse,made decisions that determined the fate of the entire world. But over the last few years,that dynamic has changed dramatically. For the first time in seven decades,Bremmer pointed out,there is no single power or alliance of powers ready to take on the challenges of global leadership. At one time,the US,Europe and Japan were the worlds powerhouses,the free-market democracies that propelled the global economy forward. Today,they are struggling to find their footing. Within Europe,only Germany and France seem comparatively stable. In Germany,poll-bound citizens are questioning why their country should be bankrolling the rest of the European community. Bremmers conclusion,that the world is in danger of becoming a series of gated communities as power is regionalised instead of globalised,is increasingly in evidence.
In a recent interview,Bremmer said that the key factor in all this is that there just isnt anyone driving the bus. We dont have a G-20. We have a G-Zero. But more important,the Europeans have been almost completely absent from the global stage over the past four years,and frankly so have the Japanese,with their 17 prime ministers in 22 years. His analysis of the current economic and political turmoil is of vital interest. He believes that the G-Zero wont last forever,but while it exists,there are winners and losers. Hes betting on countries that he calls pivot states,which include Canada,Singapore,Kazakhstan,Indonesia,Turkey,Mongolia and Brazil. He says these countries have maintained good relations with a range of big powers and have the economic potential to challenge the downturn.
More interesting are the losers,and these are countries that depend heavily on American protection. They include Japan,Taiwan and Mexico. Bremmers book,together with the Standard Chartered report,leaves us with considerable food for thought,made more onerous with the new Cold War between America and Putins Russia,and the fact that US President Barack Obamas second term has seen his popularity ratings plummet at home and abroad. What that leaves is a tabula rasa and no clear picture of where the world is headed. The best-case scenario is that out of persistent uncertainty and public pressure,dramatic,positive and far-reaching changes are undertaken by countries,changes that would not have happened otherwise. Global leadership may be in short supply,but G-Zero is surely not the answer.
dilip.bobb@expressindia.com
Share
