Global Changemakers

The advent of the G20 as the most effective forum for global governance was former prime minister Kevin Rudd’s greatest foreign policy achievement, but it is time that it became a proper institution.

Late last month, the world’s statesmen gathered in Canada for the fifth G20 leaders meeting. Their key challenge for the future is to ensure the forum can live on in a post-financial crisis environment.

The G20′s “Goldilocks size” – not too big like the UN General Assembly, nor too small like the G8 – has been the key to its success. It is unlike any other forum in that it includes a balance of developed versus developing states with representation from every major region of the world. Its legitimacy is also irrefutable, accounting as it does for 90 per cent of global market capitalisation, 80 per cent of global trade, 85 per cent of global GDP and two-thirds of the world’s population.

But the G20 remains a forum handed from country-to-country without formalised structures to support itself. It is time for it move on from a game of pass-the-parcel and Kevin Rudd could play a large role in that transition.

First, the G20 needs to seek a wider mandate than the its focus on financial and economic matters. The continuing gridlock of world trade and climate change negotiations begs the leadership that the G20 can provide.

Based on 2006 UN data, the G20 with the exception of Turkey and Argentina are also the top 20 carbon emitters. With the carbon giants and economic powerhouses of China and India both in the room alongside other chain-draggers such as Brazil and South Africa it makes sense for the G20 to be leading the charge on climate change.

The G20 also provides renewed hope for the international security paradigm at a time when the UN Security Council is losing credibility and authority. The G20 includes the global hegemon and all its rivals, all five permanent members of the Security Council, at least six nuclear states and three Islamic countries.

The stumbling block for a wider G20 agenda will be the lingering future of the G8, which has on various occasions had foreign aid, climate change, nuclear weapons and terrorism on its agenda.

The reality is the G8 is an institution that has not stood the test of time. A gathering of the richest democracies, its relevance in a post-Cold War world is dwindling and it is absurd to think that China would be locked out of any global negotiation. As the G20 continues to evolve, the G8 should continue to exist for the moment, but become increasingly willing to cede its agenda to the bigger brother.

Second, the G20 must start down the road of institutionalisation through the establishment of a permanent secretariat and possible adoption of a charter.

At the moment the G20′s activities are largely co-ordinated by a “troika” of past, present and future chairs to ensure consistency, but it is a weak mechanism. National governments take on an incredibly demanding and expensive role by hosting a meeting or holding the rotating presidency. Many also argue that most of what is issued publicly is ephemeral and affected to some degree by national bias.

By establishing a secretariat the challenge is to find the balance between a “formal” and “informal” institution. The latter has been the key to the success of the G8′s deliberations, allowing leaders to break free of “briefing book syndrome” and hasn’t involved the issuing of the dreaded post-summit communiques and the ensuing media cycle.

Third, the G20 must seek to better engage with the business community, academia and civil society through one-and-a-half-track diplomacy.

In a similar fashion to APEC and the Commonwealth Forum’s Business Advisory Councils, the G20 should establish a permanent B20 business forum. The first of its kind was held in Toronto with Australian businessman and former diplomat John Denton representing Australia.

The G20 should also seek to strengthen its ties with the academic community. In 1993 APEC did this by establishing a study centre consortium across the region in existing educational institutions providing a “think-tank” element to their work.

Both APEC and CHOGM also hold “summits” or “forums” for not only business leaders, but civil society to engage with the issues as part of the formal proceedings. A G20 symposium would provide such an opportunity and bring into the room various groups advocating more inclusiveness in its deliberations such as the “At The Table” campaign.

At different times there has been at least talk of a G2, G3, G5, G7, G11, G14, G22, G24, G33 and G77. With the G20, Rudd helped the world finally find its g-spot.

But in order for it to succeed as the preeminent forum for global decision making it must transform itself into a formal institution with an expanded agenda that is more representative and inclusive. To do so it needs an advocate as strong and well connected as Rudd.

Who knows, if he plays his cards right there just might be a position for him in it.

Thom Woodroofe, 20, is a Global Changemaker from Australia where he is the 2009 Young Victorian of the Year and founder of Left Right Think-Tank. He recently attended a meeting of G20 youth in Canada.

Other Global Changemakers have also attended a G20 youth meeting and in the past Global Changemakers have participated in the London G20 Summit.

This article first appeared in The National Times.